From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer Subject: Re: Raise initial congestion window size / speedup slow start? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:39:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20100714203919.GD6682@nuttenaction> References: <4C3D94E3.9080103@wildgooses.com> <4C3DD5EB.9070908@tmr.com> <20100714.111553.104052157.davem@davemloft.net> <4C3E0684.5060409@wildgooses.com> <4C3E1B54.40604@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ed W , David Miller , davidsen@tmr.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from alternativer.internetendpunkt.de ([88.198.24.89]:49369 "EHLO geheimer.internetendpunkt.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757881Ab0GNUjX (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:39:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C3E1B54.40604@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Rick Jones | 2010-07-14 13:17:24 [-0700]: >There is an effort under way, lead by some folks at Google and >including some others, to get the RFC's enhanced in support of the >concept of larger initial congestion windows. Some of the discussion >may be in the "tcpm" mailing list (assuming I've not gotten my >mailing lists confused). There may be some previous discussion of >that work in the netdev archives as well. tcpm is the right mailing list but there is currently no effort to develop this topic. Why? Because is not a standardization issue, rather it is a technical issue. You cannot rise the initial CWND and expect a fair behavior. This was discussed several times and is documented in several documents and RFCs. RFC 5681 Section 3.1. Google employees should start with Section 3. This topic pop's of every two months in netdev and until now I _never_ read a consolidated contribution. Partial local issues can already be "fixed" via route specific ip options - see initcwnd. HGN