(Author of eRPC.) I'm glad you've found the project useful, and my apologies for the code and build quality, and NIC compatibility issues that you faced. I'm very interested in learning from your experience (perhaps even as a GitHub issue on our repo), especially w.r.t. how the code organization should be improved, although I understand the list might be too long :).
I know of some issues myself that I plan to fix, e.g., using macros to decide which Transport class to use -- this should just use virtual methods; messy inter-mixing of congestion control and packet I/O; some "performance optimizations" like preallocated buffers that are just not worth it.
I'll be in touch you can be sure. Code is in GIT but I will not make it public until I have UDP working --- hopefully +/- 3 days.
I do and will continue mention your paper (which I also found on HN) and your repo because it has a lot of really good ideas ... ideas which I'm forced to engage to mastery.
I haven't yet had time to focus on how you deal with packet loss via and with congestion management. Anything you can do --- I'll have to reread your paper (well written BTW) to pull my own weight here --- is a real benefit to the community.
I know of some issues myself that I plan to fix, e.g., using macros to decide which Transport class to use -- this should just use virtual methods; messy inter-mixing of congestion control and packet I/O; some "performance optimizations" like preallocated buffers that are just not worth it.