RACK is a loss detection algorithm and BBR is a congestion control
algorithm so it's on a different layer.
e.g. linux can configure them independently.
However in FreeBSD it looks like it is using the same configuration sysctl
(net.inet.tcp.functions_default=tcp_rack|tcp_bbr),
so not able to set i
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 20:37, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> Coexist how? Do you mean that one socket can use one and a different
> socket uses the other? That makes sense.
Correct.
Best regards
Michael
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:34 AM wrote:
>>
>>> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
Coexist how? Do you mean that one socket can use one and a different
socket uses the other? That makes sense.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:34 AM wrote:
>
> > On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
> >
> > Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
> >
> > Just curious
Indeed, ping does work if I ping the "fe80::1%lo1" on FIB 1, which is
correct.
My script was getting the address from the routing table output (F1)
which is returning "%lo0" instead of the correct loopback number (lo6 in
my case) and as a result it was failing.
The routing table should retur
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 16:03, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:27 PM wrote:
>>
>>> On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
> On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting wi
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
>
> Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
> Is it a current bug or by design?
Technically RACK and BBR can coexist. The problem was with pf an
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
>
> Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
> Is it a current bug or by design?
Technically RACK and BBR can coexist. The problem was with pf an
> On Jul 19, 2024, at 12:11 AM, Santiago Martinez wrote:
>
> Interesting, I'm running 14.1p2.
>
>
Yes, I'm running exactly the same version with you.
> how does your routing table looks for fib1 ?
>
>
```
# netstat -6rnF 1
Routing tables (fib: 1)
Internet6:
Destination
Interesting, I'm running 14.1p2.
how does your routing table looks for fib1 ?
Santi
On 7/18/24 18:09, Zhenlei Huang wrote:
On Jul 13, 2024, at 1:06 AM, Santiago Martinez
wrote:
Hi Everyone.
While adding -F ( fib as used in netstat ) to ping and ping6 I have
found something that from m
> On Jul 13, 2024, at 1:06 AM, Santiago Martinez wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone.
>
> While adding -F ( fib as used in netstat ) to ping and ping6 I have found
> something that from my understanding is not correct.
> Please can you advise?
> I have the following setup :
>
> -- two fibs (0 and 1)
> -
Hi everyone,
Did anyone had the chance to take a look?
For me it’s a bug but before filling the PR want to know what’s your view or if
it’s a limitation or bug by design.
Br
Santi
> On 12 Jul 2024, at 19:06, Santiago Martinez wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone.
>
> While adding -F ( fib as used in ne
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 09:19:53AM +0800, Zhenlei Huang wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 2024, at 4:04 AM, Mark Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > When IPv6 SLAAC is configured for an interface, the kernel will update
> > its default router list upon receipt of a router advertisement. In so
> >
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:27 PM wrote:
>
> > On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've been experimenting with RACK and BBR. In my environment, they
> >>> can dramatical
I'm not sure what you're asking. BBR and RACK are two different
algorithms that accomplish the same thing. It wouldn't make sense to
use both on the same socket at the same time.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:01 AM Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting
Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
Is it a current bug or by design?
BR,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:27 AM wrote:
> > On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280037
--- Comment #13 from ss3bsd <3226388...@jcom.home.ne.jp> ---
By the way, is there any easy way to disable only CBC acceleration of QAT but
enable that of KTLS offload?
I want to try that next if there is.
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=279875
John Marshall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@jmarshall.id.au
--- Comment #
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280037
--- Comment #12 from ss3bsd <3226388...@jcom.home.ne.jp> ---
> I'm now running the same machine with
> kern.ipc.tls.cbc_enable=0
> to see if the stability changes.
The machine worked for 2 weeks without panic.
Changed back kern.ipc.tls.
18 matches
Mail list logo
