From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:22:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20061107.142200.115911407.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061107.124557.21592397.davem@davemloft.net> <4550FFA9.8040503@psc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:50839 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753765AbWKGWWA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:22:00 -0500 To: jheffner@psc.edu In-Reply-To: <4550FFA9.8040503@psc.edu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: John Heffner Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:50:33 -0500 > The only stack I know of that does this currently is linux, and in doing > so does not conform to the spec. ;) Sending to a BSD receiver will > result in the same behavior, so the "right place" to fix this is on the > sending side. (I know the issue of packet vs. byte counting has come up > many times over the last 10 years or so, and many arguments have been > made on either side... I don't mean this to be flame bait but it's clear > what will happen in this scenario.) John, you cannot change the N-million existing Linux systems out there doing congestion control via byte counting. You cannot do this no matter how much you wish it so :-)