Hi,
Has there been an effort to implement the Westwood congestion control
algorithm? Is there a source file available? I would like to take a look
and see how Bandwidth estimation is done there.
Thank you in advance!
Best Regards,
Karlis
___
freebsd-ne
You're right.. strongswan fails/hangs with:
initiating IKE_SA host-host[1] to 10.0.30.66
generating IKE_SA_INIT request 0 [ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP)
N(HASH_ALG) ]
sending packet: from 10.0.30.114[500] to 10.0.30.66[500] (1148 bytes)
received packet: from 10.0.30.66[500] to 10.0.30.114[5
On 24.04.2015 03:55, Sydney Meyer wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> with your patch applied the performance drop while using the
> IPSEC-enabled kernel without doing actual IPSec traffic seems to be
> gone.
>
> I haven't tested IPSec itself yet, as i had to start from scratch
> with new VM's but i will set up
Andrey,
with your patch applied the performance drop while using the IPSEC-enabled
kernel without doing actual IPSec traffic seems to be gone.
I haven't tested IPSec itself yet, as i had to start from scratch with new VM's
but i will set up a IPSec connection and report back.
S.
> On Apr 24,
Hello Andrey,
first off, thank you for your explanation.
As for your Hint, i am not a C Programmer but i think i have a better
understanding of the issue now.
I believe this is a know issue and the reason why IPSEC isn't in GENERIC, afaik
from this discussion
(https://lists.freebsd.org/piperm
Sure.. i'll get back to you..
S.
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 01:26, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> On 24.04.2015 01:00, Sydney Meyer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have set up 2 VM's under Xen running each one IPSec-Endpoint.
>> Everything seems to work fine, but (measured with benchmarks/iperf)
>> the perf
On 24.04.2015 01:00, Sydney Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have set up 2 VM's under Xen running each one IPSec-Endpoint.
> Everything seems to work fine, but (measured with benchmarks/iperf)
> the performance drops from ~10 Gb/s on a non-IPSec-Kernel to ~200
> Mb/s with IPSec compiled in, regardless
On 24.04.2015 01:00, Sydney Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have set up 2 VM's under Xen running each one IPSec-Endpoint.
> Everything seems to work fine, but (measured with benchmarks/iperf)
> the performance drops from ~10 Gb/s on a non-IPSec-Kernel to ~200
> Mb/s with IPSec compiled in, regardless
This is veering somewhat off tangent for the freebsd-net list, but...
On 04/23/2015 21:15, Karlis Laivins wrote:
Hello once again,
Before I dive in the TEACUP, I wanted to clarify this - should I build the
testbed to consist of FreeBSD machines, will I be able to use congestion
control module
Hello,
I have set up 2 VM's under Xen running each one IPSec-Endpoint. Everything
seems to work fine, but (measured with benchmarks/iperf) the performance drops
from ~10 Gb/s on a non-IPSec-Kernel to ~200 Mb/s with IPSec compiled in,
regardless of whether actually using IPSec or not.
I have re
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194855
Gleb Smirnoff changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gleb...@freebsd.org
Assi
On 4/22/2015 8:34 PM, Scott O'Connell wrote:
I tried your suggestions.
I was successful in changing the vmhost01 bridge to include vlan100
and tap0, and in the vm (dev) binding the address directly to vtnet0.
On the VMHOST:
tap0: flags=8943
metric 0 mtu 1500
options=8
e
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:47:45PM -0700, Scott Larson wrote:
> We're in the process of migrating our network into the future with 40G
> at the core, including our firewall/traffic routers with 40G interfaces. An
> issue which this exposed and threw me for a week turns out to be directly
> rel
Hello once again,
Before I dive in the TEACUP, I wanted to clarify this - should I build the
testbed to consist of FreeBSD machines, will I be able to use congestion
control module (.ko) that was created by modifying the cc_newreno (written
in C) in TEACUP, or will I have to rewrite it in Python?
Hi,
Thank you very much for this suggestion! I will try to build the testbed
and use the tool suggested by you.
Best Regards,
Karlis
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:45 PM, grenville armitage
wrote:
>
>
> On 04/23/2015 17:17, Karlis Laivins wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am currently working on a modificat
On 04/23/2015 17:17, Karlis Laivins wrote:
Hi,
I am currently working on a modification of TCP NewReno congestion control
algorithm. It seems that I have been able to write a working module.
Now, I am looking for a way to test the performance of the built-in
congestion control algorithms and
On 03/04/14 at 10:22P, hiren panchasara wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>
>
> > I lost the battle of wills on this topic and 10.0 shipped with IW10
> > enabled by default :(
> >
> > As for having it configurable, it is a trivial patch which perhaps,
> > Hiren, yo
Bezüglich Harald Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 20.02.2015 14:17 (localtime):
(https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2015-February/081810.html)
> Bezüglich Harald Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 11.02.2015 20:48
> (localtime):
>> Bezüglich Jack Vogel's Nachricht vom 11.02.2015 18:31 (loc
On 4/23/15 3:17 PM, Karlis Laivins wrote:
Hi,
I am currently working on a modification of TCP NewReno congestion control
algorithm. It seems that I have been able to write a working module.
Now, I am looking for a way to test the performance of the built-in
congestion control algorithms and the
On 04/23/15 at 10:17P, Karlis Laivins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently working on a modification of TCP NewReno congestion control
> algorithm. It seems that I have been able to write a working module.
>
> Now, I am looking for a way to test the performance of the built-in
> congestion control alg
Hi,
On 2015-4-23, at 09:17, Karlis Laivins wrote:
> I am currently working on a modification of TCP NewReno congestion control
> algorithm. It seems that I have been able to write a working module.
>
> Now, I am looking for a way to test the performance of the built-in
> congestion control algor
Hi,
I am currently working on a modification of TCP NewReno congestion control
algorithm. It seems that I have been able to write a working module.
Now, I am looking for a way to test the performance of the built-in
congestion control algorithms and the new algorithm. I have heard about the
NS-2
22 matches
Mail list logo