From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To: psusi@cfl.rr.com (Phillip Susi)
Subject: Re: What happened to CONFIG_TCP_NAGLE_OFF?
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, matthew.garman@gmail.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Core
In-Reply-To: <457093C5.1040501@cfl.rr.com>
User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.17-rc4 (i686))
Message-Id: <E1GqLZ0-0006iY-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:29:18 +1100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1266
Lines: 29

Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> UDP is highly appropriate because the congestion controls and other 
> features of TCP are not required for this type of data, and in fact, 
> tend to muck things up.  That is why the application needs to implement 
> its own congestion, sequencing, retransmit and connect/disconnect 
> controls; because the way TCP handles them is not good for this 
> application.

Congestion control is always appropriate in a shared network.  Please
note that congestion control does not conflict with the objectives of
UDP.  For UDP, congestion control can simply mean dropping packets at
the source.  DCCP is a good replacement for UDP that has congestion
control.

In general it's much better to much better to drop packets at the
source rather than half-way through.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/