Re: cubic patch

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

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
behavior.