From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: split tcp_ecn sysctl knob to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:57:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20130103125736.GI4464@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20130103000009.GG4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <1357217260.21409.24224.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:33801 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751237Ab3ACM5h (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:57:37 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1357217260.21409.24224.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:47:40AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 01:00 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > ECN could be more reliable when used with IPv6 (I don't have proofs). For > > people who want to try ECN with IPv6 but still have problems connecting > > to destinations because of broken IPv4 routers this switch allows one > > to enable ECN just for IPv6. > > > > Perhaps ECN could be enabled by default in future. > > > > No code changes since initial submission, just added documentation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa > > --- > > It would be nice to make the ecn sysctl per net namespace. > > Do you have an idea of how to adapt your patch to get this as well ? Currently not, but I will try. :) Is the direction to split the sysctl ok? Or should it be a unified sysctl for ipv4/ipv6 and only be separate per namespace? Thanks!