From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:37:13 -0800
> My patches weren't reactionary. Going to pure old Reno is reactionary. > It was more looking at the state of the code on the flight back > and cleaning house. Others were/are reactionary. Ok. The only patch I have a real problem with is the DEFAULT_* removals, the choices are frankly arbitrary. Vegas is buggy, that's nice, why don't we simply fix the bugs in our implementation? Westwood is very conservative, frankly, and I therefore see no reason it cannot be offered as a default either. HTCP doesn't do anything earth shattering either. I think the whole suite of algorithms in that list are reasonable. And even re-reading your patch, you're messing with the DEFAULT_* setting for the case where the user selected TCP_CONG_ADVANCED. I think TCP_CONG_ADVANCED implies an intention by the user, and if he wants to choose one of those listed as a default why should we stop them? The distributions take the default we recommend, and that's all that matters for wide deployment. > I push the problem back in their court: "Why do you not have a process > that causes consensus?" IETF has done nothing to create any incentive > for long term cooperation. Yep, this is a good point. > Do I need to dig out the "Why Reno sucks" graphs? Hehe :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
