Spewing crap is easy, but useless except to annoy people. EvilTCP would
actually reliably deliver data and could do extremely useful work, at the
expense of other users.
Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
We must not tolerate intolerance;
however our response must be carefully measured:
too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
control;
too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:16 PM Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 3:45 PM Matt Mathis via Rpm
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't send this upstream. It would makesTCP into the evil
> transport from hell.
>
> You mean it isn't already? :)
>
> There are a lot of test tools in the world (like pktgen) that are
> designed to do evil things to the network,
> why not evilTCP(tm)? Too many tools synthesize evil one way traffic
> and people draw incorrect conclusions
> from those....
>
> > Modern loss recovery is robust enough to run hardcoded cwnd=<blat> and
> persistent losses, Please don't make this too easy for people who are
> intent on getting their "fair" share of the network before the greedy
> people.
> >
> > Dave overlooked an important detail in relentless TCP:
>
> It had been a while, and it was intended to be a complex point. But
> thx for the correction.
>
> >It reduced the window by exactly the losses, such that the presented load
> was exactly the quantity of data successfully delivered on the previous
> RTT. I have forgotten the details of the increase function, but it was
> something Reno like but only on loss less RTTs.
>
> What I was looking for was a test tool that mimicked enough of tcp's
> coupled ack behavior to give more predictable results, when
> looking for expected behavior from an AQM (or policer). What I had
> been using before was a udp flood, but that was dicy (and very
> misleading) on non-duplex wireless.
>
> That, and a small nuclear reactor so I'd never have to put more diesel
> in my (still broken) boat.
>
> >
> >
> > If you want to adapt TCP
> > Thanks,
> > --MM--
> > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
> >
> > We must not tolerate intolerance;
> > however our response must be carefully measured:
> > too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
> control;
> > too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 11:02 AM Luigi Rizzo via Rpm <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:33 PM Bob McMahon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > hmm, this looks interesting to a test & measurement guy. Can it be
> done with a setsockopt? I might want to add this as an iperf2 option,
> particularly if it's broadly available,
> >>
> >>
> >> I would be happy to submit it as one or two upstream patches --
> >> perhaps one to implement
> >> the basic "ignore_holes" + setsockopt(), and another mechanism (if
> >> there isn't one
> >> already) to override defaults sockopts on certain sockets.
> >>
> >> I do think we need more readily available testing tool,
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> luigi
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Rpm mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
>
>
> --
> Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw
>
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
