🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Rees (rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu) wrote:
: 
: I don't understand why this queueing was done on the basis of tcp port
: number rather than packet size.  Wouldn't it be far more general to put all
: packets below a certain size on the fast queue?  I know this would result in
: some packet re-ordering within connections, but that should be ok.

my guess is that this would do perverse things to round-trip estimators,
and that you'd have tcp implementations getting confused about just how
fast and how congested the link was.  e.g. the acks would come back "too
fast" and overly encourage the production of new big packets to clog the link.

you'd want to try it out to see, of course, but i suspect that in general
you'll have better results if you skew performance on a per-connection
basis rather than a per-packet basis.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562