nanog mailing list archives
Re: UUNET Routing issues
From: "Petri Helenius" <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:20:53 +0300
In my experience, TCP deals better with packet loss than a jittery RTT (caused by huge buffering capability on linecards)
Unfortunately most people writing up SLAs have RTT measured as a very long average (so a little bouncing around does not matter) but have quite low packet loss targets. So they are biased towards large buffering to achive near-zero loss. Obviously the best option is to offer different classes of service, one providing constant latency with loss if neccessary and one providing minimal loss with excessive buffering. Pete
Current thread:
- Re: UUNET Routing issues, (continued)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Petri Helenius (Oct 04)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 04)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Petri Helenius (Oct 04)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 04)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Rafi Sadowsky (Oct 05)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 05)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Marshall Eubanks (Oct 05)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Petri Helenius (Oct 05)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Stephen Sprunk (Oct 03)
- Re: UUNET Routing issues Scott Granados (Oct 06)