⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 requirement007.tex

📁 FREESWAN VPN源代码包
💻 TEX
字号:
\subsection{007: why do equalizing schedulers not play well with tunnels?}\subsubsection{007: Definition of requirement }linux/net/sched/sch\_teql.c says:\begin{verbatim}    1. Slave devices MUST be active devices, i.e., they must raise the tbusy       signal and generate EOI events. If you want to equalize virtual devices       like tunnels, use a normal eql device.\end{verbatim}A normal ``eql'' device ({\tt linux/drivers/net/eql.c}) simply does a simpleform of round-robin scheduling among devices. It can round robin amongdevices of equal weight.The teql scheduling device uses the scheduling system's back pressure (the{\tt dev->tbusy} flag) to give each device as much as it wishes.\subsubsection{007: response}The KLIPS1 {\tt ipsecX} devices are never busy. They therefore can not beequalized using this scheduler.The virtual devices could use the {\tt tbusy} mechanism. To be able todo this, the {\tt MAST} device will have to be given a clear amount ofresources on a per-virtual device basis. As the limit to throughput will bethe lesser of encryption throughput and physical device throughput, once thebuffers are full, the virtual device can raise the {\tt tbusy} flag.For this to be useful, the paths to the remote host must bedifferent. Specifically, the outer destination address must in some way bedifferent. If there are simply two physical ways to get to the samedestination address then standard load-balancing would work once the {\tt MAST} devices have processed the cleartext.The use of the {\tt tbusy} feature is not considered to contribute stronglytowards Opportunistic Encryption. The creation of the MAST device is howevercritical. 

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -