Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-23 Thread Daniele Lacamera
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 05:00, Matt Mackall wrote: > It's disappointing that this paper appears to be available only > through subscription sources. If I'm mistaken, please post a URL. > The authors are making a webpage with info and documentation. I suppose that article you are referring

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-23 Thread Angelo Dell'Aera
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:19 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably the best long term solution is to make the protocol choice > be a property of the destination cache [..] > The protocol choices are mutually exclusive, if you walk through the code > (or do experiments),

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:14:47 -0800, David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An idea I've been toying with for a while now is completely abstracting > congestion control. Then you could have congestion control lo

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Matt Mackall
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:34:42PM +0100, Daniele Lacamera wrote: > Hi > This is the official patch to implement TCP Hybla congestion avoidance. > > - "In heterogeneous networks, TCP connections that incorporate a > terrestrial or satellite radio link are greatly disadvantaged with > respect to

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Tobias DiPasquale
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:14:47 -0800, David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) > John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An idea I've been toying with for a while now is completely abstracting > > congestion control. Then you could have congestion

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Baruch Even
Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100 Daniele Lacamera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One last note: IMHO we really need a better way to select congestion avoidance scheme between those available, instead of switching each one on and off. I.e., we can't say how vegas and westwoo

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread David S. Miller
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:19 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The protocol choices are mutually exclusive, if you walk through the code > (or do experiments), you find that that only one gets used. As part of the > longer term plan, I would like to: > - have one sysctl >

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread David S. Miller
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An idea I've been toying with for a while now is completely abstracting > congestion control. Then you could have congestion control loadable > modules, which would avoid this mess of experimental algorithms inside

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread John Heffner
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100 > Daniele Lacamera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One last note: IMHO we really need a better way to select congestion > > avoidance scheme between those available, instead of switching each one > > on and off. I.

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100 Daniele Lacamera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > This is the official patch to implement TCP Hybla congestion avoidance. > > - "In heterogeneous networks, TCP connections that incorporate a > terrestrial or satellite radio link are greatly disadvantaged with

Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

2005-02-22 Thread Daniele Lacamera
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 15:34, Daniele Lacamera wrote: > Hi > This is the official patch to implement TCP Hybla congestion avoidance. I've post a wrong/unclean patch. Here's the right one. Sorry. -- Daniele Lacamera root at danielinux.net diff -ruN linux-2.6.11-rc4/Documentation/networking