[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: cubic patch
Mihai Chelaru <chelaru%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
> Actually, I implemented CUBIC after consulting an IETF draft (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rhee-tcpm-cubic-02 ) and other
> documents like the one written by Ha, Rhee & Xu. I couldn't find any
> RFC regarding CUBIC. On the other hand, NewReno is referenced in
> several RFCs.
Thanks. Perhaps that expired; I didn't see it on the tracker page.
Looking, I see it expired in 2009. Do you know why the people who
prefer CUBIC haven't maintained a draft and at least published it as
EXPERIMENTAL? The notions that it's default in Linux and the draft is
long-expired don't really seem to go together.
> All my tests resulted in total throughput difference between CUBIC and
> NewReno that could fit inside margin of error.
That's interesting, but if CUBIC does meet the congestion-control rules
it is not entirely surprising. If you haven't run tcpdump2xplot (and
xplot), you'll probably find that interesting.
I think it's great that we have CUBIC in our system. I don't mean to
sound negative about options. But, I think NetBSD should closely
follow IETF standards-track recommendations for what is the default
Main Index |
Thread Index |