[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1GqLZ0-0006iY-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:29:18 +1100
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: psusi@....rr.com (Phillip Susi)
Cc: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, matthew.garman@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What happened to CONFIG_TCP_NAGLE_OFF?
Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com> wrote:
>
> UDP is highly appropriate because the congestion controls and other
> features of TCP are not required for this type of data, and in fact,
> tend to muck things up. That is why the application needs to implement
> its own congestion, sequencing, retransmit and connect/disconnect
> controls; because the way TCP handles them is not good for this
> application.
Congestion control is always appropriate in a shared network. Please
note that congestion control does not conflict with the objectives of
UDP. For UDP, congestion control can simply mean dropping packets at
the source. DCCP is a good replacement for UDP that has congestion
control.
In general it's much better to much better to drop packets at the
source rather than half-way through.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists