Re: [Cake] cake for net-next 4.8

[Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>]

> On 29 Sep, 2016, at 02:26, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All along I'd been assuming
> that a specialized TCP of some new flavor yet-to-be-agreed-upon would
> negotiate ECN and most/all its packets would be marked ECT(1), rather
> than ECT(0), and a new AQM would treat a flow like that differently,
> but still mark that flow with a CE that the endpoint would interpret
> differently.
> 
> Are you saying ECT(1) would, instead, be used as a "weaker or harder" CE?

The former appears to be the solution TCP Prague are keen on.  It doesn’t seem like a robust, deployable solution to me, despite the tremendous amount of effort that’s gone into that class of solutions.

The latter is my suggestion - to use the distinction between ECT(0) and ECT(1) as a hint, rather than a command, to slow down.  I also think we should move computation of the congestion window to the receiver, as that greatly simplifies the reverse-path signalling problem.

You may remember my description of ELR.  I started documenting it more formally, and then got distracted by something more urgent...

 - Jonathan Morton