netdev - Re: [patch 3/3] tcp: remove experimental variants from default list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:37:13 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, baruch@...en.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] tcp: remove experimental variants from default list

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:32:40 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: "Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:13:52 +1300
> 
> > Unless of course the papers you saw at PFLDNET showed that Cubic was a
> > really good choice and you want to point us to those papers.
> 
> I heavily dislike all of these "reactionary" patches from Stephen
> after he attended PFDLNET.
> 
> If he never went there, none of these patches would have been
> proposed.  He went to the sermon and he became converted :-)

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. 


> We want people to play with this stuff, and they can experiment
> regardless of whatever options or even code we put into the kernel.
> Every user can muck with the congestion control on their computer
> however they want, and THAT'S GOOD!
> 
> Sure we indirectly recommend to distribution vendors what to use
> by default by the Kconfig defaults we put into the vanilla tree,
> and that's fine too.
> 
> Even after reading all of the papers, I still think CUBIC or even BIC
> by default is not all that controbersal or radical thing to use by
> default.
> 
> I'm sorry if the researchers and IETF folks don't like this.  Too bad,
> get over it.

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.

> If you use RENO you're stupid, since performance is going to stink for
> absolutely normal connections.  Fact: high BDP pipes are everywhere,
> even grandma has one.  So just taking out the best solution we have
> for that problem currently because it's not perfect is not the answer.
> 

Do I need to dig out the "Why Reno sucks" graphs?

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html