3 ms·
This new protocol uses packet latency based throttling instead of the packet loss based throttling of TCP. I don't think the article documents any details. May
by jws 17y ago
This new protocol uses packet latency based throttling instead of the packet loss based throttling of TCP.
I don't think the article documents any details. Maybe I missed a link.
- Zev 17y agoThe article doesn't mention details but in the comments, Simon links to the IETF working group on this: http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/ledbat-charter.html http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/ledbat-charter.html
- dschobel 17y agoLatency based congestion control already exists for TCP[1]. So my question is, why wouldn't you get the same effect by running BT on top of a network stack using Vegas? Someone flash the tptacek signal! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_Vegas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_Vegas
- wmf 17y agowhy wouldn't you get the same effect by running BT on top of a network stack using Vegas? You probably would, but Windows doesn't support Vegas. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00052.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00052.h...
- jws 17y agoIt appears to me that if you use Vegas on your Linux machine then all of your TCP connections use Vegas, which will make you a second class citizen to all the Reno folk out there on the internet. If you assume that your own uplink is the only bottleneck to be dealt with (say you are serving torrents over a DSL line) then this is reasonable, but I don't think I'd want to yield to all TCP users everywhere with all of my outgoing traffic. There are also some scary comments in the notes from before it was rolled into the kernel, like the code doesn't handle route changes. I can see why a vendor would choose something over which they have control.
- moriarty 17y agoDetails of the protocol are here: http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0029.html http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0029.html