I'm not a programmer, and I know almost nothing about it...

But reading this thread, I remembered this draft about BGP-over-QUIC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic/

I'm not sure what I'm going to say, but I have the impression that the session closure control method that will be chosen may have something to do with this BoQ idea.

I don't even know if what I'm saying makes any sense or not.
But if you do, it may be something that you have to take into consideration when choosing the method.

And besides, there are many other "ifs"...
We don't even know if this Draft will actually become an RFC. And if it becomes RFC, we don't even know if it will have traction.
We also don't know if the IBRD project will adhere to this protocol, etc...

But, I thought it was opportune to mention.

Em qui., 16 de mai. de 2024 às 07:59, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> escreveu:

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:37:18PM +0200, Job Snijders via Bird-users wrote:
> Dear BIRD people,
>
> On most systems RFC 896 TCP congestion control is used, also known as
> "Nagle's algorithm". This algorithm is intended to help coalesce
> consecutive small packets from userland applications (like BIRD) into a
> single larger TCP packet. The idea being it reduces bandwidth because
> there is less TCP overhead if data is bundled into fewer packets.
> ...
> I think using TCP_NODELAY is interesting to consider, because it seems
> sensible to try to deliver BGP messages as fast as possible. OpenBGPD
> and FRR set the TCP_NODELAY socket option.

Hi

Yeah, i think that using TCP_NODELAY for BGP makes sense, considering
there is already non-trivial framing and we write individual BGP messages
with one write().

--
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."