From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jul 20  0:25:53 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3D7FA37B400; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iguana.icir.org (iguana.icir.org [192.150.187.36])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 89DB243E4A; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@iguana.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by iguana.icir.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g6K7PFp40879;
	Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
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>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0207200005190.12241-100000@imladris.surriel.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207192357270.92922-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
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
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-hackers.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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