Return-Path: Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:41147 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725991AbeKMKIz (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 05:08:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180925145622.29959-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180925145622.29959-24-Jason@zx2c4.com> <7830522a-968e-0880-beb7-44904466cf14@labo.rs> In-Reply-To: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:13:13 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 23/23] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel To: Dave Taht Cc: labokml@labo.rs, LKML , Netdev , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:10 PM Dave Taht wrote: > you have a speling error (ECM). :) Thanks. > > side note: > > I have to say that wireguard works really well with ecn and non-ecn marked flows > against codel and fq_codel on the bottleneck router. Yup! > I'd still rather like it if wireguard focused a bit more on > interleaving multiple flows better > rather than on single stream benchmarks, one day. We're working on it, actually. Toke has been running some tests on some beefy 100gbps hardware he recently acquired, and after v1 lands we'll probably have a few interesting ideas for this. Jason