From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gilad Ben-Yossef Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Per route TCP options Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:27:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4ADEC5E8.9060205@codefidence.com> References: <1256052161-14156-1-git-send-email-gilad@codefidence.com> <20091020221354.5a714323.billfink@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ori@comsleep.com To: Bill Fink Return-path: Received: from xenbox.codefidence.com ([92.48.73.16]:39921 "EHLO xenbox.codefidence.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751163AbZJUI1U (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:27:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091020221354.5a714323.billfink@mindspring.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Bill Fink wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > >> Turn the global sysctls allowing disabling of TCP SACK, DSCAK, >> time stamp and window scale into per route entry feature options, >> laying the ground to future removal of the relevant global sysctls. >> >> You really only want to disable SACK, DSACK, time stamp or window >> scale if you've got a piece of broken networking equipment somewhere >> as a stop gap until you can bring a big enough hammer to deal with >> the broken network equipment. It doesn't make sense to "punish" the >> entire connections going through the machine to destinations not >> related to the broken equipment. >> > > For certain test situations, it is sometimes desirable to globally > disable TCP timestamps. Although I have not personally wanted to > globally disable the other mentioned features, I can imagine test > scenarios where it could be useful. Admittedly it could also be > accomplished with per route features, just not as conveniently, > especially if there are a large number of interfaces and/or routes. > > I don't feel that strongly about it either way, just trying to hearken to Linus "Linux is bloated" message by not fostering duplicate ways to do the same thing... ;-) If the consensus is to adopt the route features but leave the global kill switches, I certainly have no problem with that. Thanks, Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker & CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web: http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Skype: gilad_codefidence Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 Fax: +972-8-9316884 Email: gilad@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxology.net "Sorry cannot parse this, its too long to be true :)" -- Eric Dumazet on netdev mailing list