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-hackers" 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>