Hi Matthieu, On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 04:13:16PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Thank you for your quick reply!
You're welcome! > > I'll comment on each patch separately, > > Thank you, please take your time! That's what I'm doing but I really want to make sure we won't discover last-minute show-stoppers that require important changes. It's still possible to do some important ones for a few weeks, so let's tackle all roadblocks while we can. I really feel like we're on a good track now! (... mss ...) > I just filled a new ticket on MPTCP side, not to forget about that: > > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/515 OK! > > With that said, from an implementation perspective, it would seem right > > to make sure that most TCP tunables also work with MPTCP. > > That's what we tried to do. All "common" ones are supported, but it is > not always easy to define what is "common" and what is not! There are > many obscure/specific socket options out there :) I agree :-) For example we're using other horrors such as TCP_REPAIR, which was initially defined for CRIU, and that we're using to silently destroy a connection without responding. It's extremely effective against HTTP botnets as they keep their connection pending and do not consume anything locally. I don't know if you have it, but if you're interested in giving it a try, I can help you set it up in haproxy for a test. Cheers, Willy
