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 17:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20130103165838.GA14323@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20130103000009.GG4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130103122844.GH4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130103.045350.1322196416782379673.davem@davemloft.net> <20130103125812.GJ4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130103082254.770d4222@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:34264 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753248Ab3ACQ6j (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:58:39 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130103082254.770d4222@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:22:54AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:58:12 +0100 > Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:53:50AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa > > > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:28:44 +0100 > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:00:09AM +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. > > > > > > > > May I ask what lead to the rejection of the patch? > > > > > > I don't see any value in splitting up ipv4 and ipv6. > > > > > > I think we should turn the existing knob on unliaterally > > > by default. That would be a much better patch. > > > > Oh, I would be happy to do that. :) > > Perhaps, ECN should be a property of the route. > There is RTAX_FEATURE_ECN but it appears to have been lost > as part of the removal of route cache. I suggested something like this in the discussion on bufferbloat: Especially if RFC5562 would be implemented one day, this could really be helpful.