I want this too ;) For one, it would be a perfect example of using
good existing tools to achieve the goal instead of inventing
something big and new. Also it does not reduce MTU unlike
packet-encapsulation tunnels.
Now it's an imperfect example due to noted TCP over TCP performance
problem ('internal meltdown').
> Is this even remotely reasonable? If it would cause performance
> degradation it'd have to be a config option or never make the kernel
> at all (Linus may never accept it regardless I suppose) But ignoring
> that for a moment, is it just too hairy to contemplate? I've done a
> few patches here and there for Linux in the past, but nothing like
> this (and nothing involving networking) so it is far beyond my
> capability. But if something was cooked up that works well enough
> I'd be willing to try polishing it and porting between kernel
> versions where necessary.
>
> But I'd take any suggestions for alterations in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/*
> that might help the current state of things.
I'm looking there for the first time ever, but it seems you
can twiddle TCP parameters in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_*
(OTOH I don't see retransmit timeout controls there...
maybe they have another name?)
In order to make them per-iface one needs to have an ability to
override them in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ethX.
Seems like this is not implemented.
-- vda - 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/