[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+kSB9WCNVFyJsdS3wvf=wVHPCFx=D3ZopNAxs4vEcSEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 10:15:16 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@...le.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] tcp: add SACK compression
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for implementing this! Overall this patch seems nice to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
> >
> > BTW, I guess we should spread the word to maintainers of other major TCP
> > stacks that they need to be prepared for what may be a much higher
degree
> > of compression/aggregation in the SACK stream. Linux stacks going back
many
> > years should be fine with this, but I'm not sure about the other major
OSes
> > (they may only allow sending one MSS per ACK-with-SACKs received).
> Patch looks really good but Neal's comment just reminds me a potential
> legacy issue.
> I recall at least Apple and Windows TCP stacks still need 3+ DUPACKs
> (!= a SACK covering 3+ packets) to trigger fast recovery. Will we have
> an issue there interacting w/ these stacks?
Then we should revert GRO :)
Really it is time for these stacks to catch up, or give up to QUIC :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists