Is there a PR for it?
-a On 27 August 2014 00:23, Eggert, Lars <l...@netapp.com> wrote: > It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 has > been out for a while. > > Lars > > > > > 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" > > _______________________________________________ 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"
