Subject: Re: Refactoring Congestion Control (take 2)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>
List: tech-net
Date: 10/08/2006 13:19:05
On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:01 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> "cwnd_inflation" sounds weird to me, given that what it does is
> ack handling for fast recovery. otoh, "new_data_acked" inflates cwnd.
> isn't it better to unify these two callbacks?
Well, "inflation" is probably not the best word, but I don't see why
we want to unify them. What do you have in mind?
> btw, where sack will be in the whole picture, eventually?
I don't know yet. SACK, like ECN, can work with Reno, NewReno and
other congestion control algorithms. At least, I'm sure we don't want:
congctl.available = reno newreno reno-sack newreno-sack, etc.
--
Rui Paulo