It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 has been out for a while.
Lars
prr.patch
Description: Binary data
On 2014-8-26, at 20:09, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi! > > I'm going to merge Tom's work in a week unless someone gives me a > really good reason not to. > > I think there's been enough work and discussion about it since the > first post from Lars in Feburary and enough review opportunity. > > > -a > > > On 26 August 2014 07:55, Tom Jones <jo...@sdf.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:43:49PM +0000, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the newcwv patch is probably stale now with Tom Jones' recent patch based on >>> a more up-to-date version of the Internet-Draft, but the PRR patch should >>> still be useful? >> >> My newcwv patch is much more up to date than Aris's, but it is slightly >> different in implementation. I have had a few suggestions from Adrian, but he >> couldn't comment on how it relates to the tcp internals. >> >> There is a PR: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191520 >> >> The biggest difference in structure between mine and Aris's patch is the use >> of >> tcp timers. It would be good to hear if my approach or Aris's is prefered. >> >>> On 2014-6-19, at 23:35, George Neville-Neil <g...@neville-neil.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4 Feb 2014, at 1:38, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> below are two patches that implement RFC6937 ("Proportional Rate >>>>> Reduction for TCP") and draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 ("Updating TCP to >>>>> support Rate-Limited Traffic"). They were done by Aris Angelogiannopoulos >>>>> for his MS thesis, which is at >>>>> https://eggert.org/students/angelogiannopoulos-thesis.pdf. >>>>> >>>>> The patches should apply to -CURRENT as of Sep 17, 2013. (Sorry for the >>>>> delay in sending them, we'd been trying to get some feedback from >>>>> committers first, without luck.) >>>>> >>>>> Please note that newcwv is still a work in progress in the IETF, and the >>>>> patch has some limitations with regards to the "pipeACK Sampling Period" >>>>> mentioned in the Internet-Draft. Aris says this in his thesis about what >>>>> exactly he implemented: >>>>> >>>>> "The second implementation choice, is in regards with the measurement of >>>>> pipeACK. This variable is the most important introduced by the method and >>>>> is used to compute the phase that the sender currently lies in. In order >>>>> to compute pipeACK the approach suggested by the Internet Draft (ID) is >>>>> followed [ncwv]. During initialization, pipeACK is set to the maximum >>>>> possible value. A helper variable prevHighACK is introduced that is >>>>> initialized to the initial sequence number (iss). prevHighACK holds the >>>>> value of the highest acknowledged byte so far. pipeACK is measured once >>>>> per RTT meaning that when an ACK covering prevHighACK is received, >>>>> pipeACK becomes the difference between the current ACK and prevHighACK. >>>>> This is called a pipeACK sample. A newer version of the draft suggests >>>>> that multiple pipeACK samples can be used during the pipeACK sampling >>>>> period." >>>>> >>>>> Lars >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [prr.patch] >>>>> >>>>> [newcwv.patch] >>>> >>>> Apologies for not looking at this as yet. It is now closer to the top of >>>> my list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> George >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Tom >> @adventureloop >> adventurist.me >> >> :wq >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
