Thank you, Matthew! Got more focused. Just a couple of clarifications in
pursuit:

2013/4/24 Matthew Toseland <[email protected]>

> On Tuesday 23 Apr 2013 21:29:40 Vladislav Sterzhanov wrote:
> > Some questions about your would-like expectations for this project:
> >
>
> We do NOT vary packet sizes to maximise throughput under loss/corruption
> that depends on packet size. IMHO we should; if there is significant loss
> then we should be able to detect the MTU directly even if we can't do ICMP;


Since we do not have the access to the IP-headers, this would
only effectively work for the IPv6 where the "don't fragment" is the
default behavior for a sender. In v4 then we are not able to distinguish
whether the packet was dis- and re-assembled while passing through, or it
managed to squeeze without splitting, right? Then in v4-case it is not so
much about actually detecting Path MTU, but more of determining general
optimal packet size, isn't it? But we can adjust the algorithm a bit to
reach optimal packet size / performance ratio, since we don't actually care
purely about Path MTU value. Did you mean it when talking about maximizing
the throughput?

>but on wifi there may be other tradeoffs?


Not sure about this one - can you clarify it a bit?

Or we could have a (potentially priveliged) helper, but it'd need to be a
> separate process, and it'd be problematic for installing on linux again for
> security reasons (maybe even call out to ping!). Of course any of this
> would make the protocol more easily detected, and wouldn't apply to other
> transport plugins...
>

Potentially, we could make this a configurable option for a Really poor
connection (low MTU, high latency, poor routers). But will it be
effectively-worthy? For me it seems to be a very unpleasant overhead,
especially taking into account that the careful implementation of previous
idea could handle such situation by itself.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to