Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:25:15 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc:        Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Another go at bandwidth delay product pipeline limiting for TCP
Message-ID:  <20020720002515.A40795@iguana.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207192357270.92922-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 12:05:16AM -0700
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0207200005190.12241-100000@imladris.surriel.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207192357270.92922-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 12:05:16AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
...
> I queued the outgoing acks and clocked them out by only allowing an ack to
> be released and forwarded, when my own 'metered simulation' of the ack
> rate had passed the ack in the packet..  It had the desired affect...
...
this seems to be the same approach used by "Packeteer". Maybe they
ended up patenting it :)

On the other hand, you can achieve pretty much the same effect with
dummynet, as you release incoming (bulky) packets at the desired
rate. Both dummynet and your/packeteer approach cannot avoid the
initial queue buildup at the far end, but they are 100% equivalent
and usavble in the steady state (with responsive flows).

	cheers
	luigi

> Whistle/IBM was going to try for a patent (silly idea I think).
> I wonder if they ever did..?

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020720002515.A40795>