nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP congestion
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:29:37 -0400
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:07:00 PDT, Philip Lavine said:
What is strange is there is nothing prior to the drop off that would be an impetus for congestion (no high BW utilization or packet loss).
Just because there wasn't any congestion reason that *you* could see where you hat your instrumentation doesn't mean there's 100% congestion free end-to-end. (Feel free to hit delete if you actually *do* have instrumentation looking both directions on every segment involved). Who knows, maybe a few packets got corrupted on the wire, and the TCP chucksum actually caught it and dropped the offending packets.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- TCP congestion Philip Lavine (Jul 12)
- RE: TCP congestion Brian Knoll (TTNET) (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Fred Baker (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Jared Mauch (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 12)
- RE: TCP congestion michael.dillon (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Joe Loiacono (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Jay Hennigan (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Warren Kumari (Jul 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: TCP congestion Philip Lavine (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Stephen Wilcox (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Philip Lavine (Jul 12)
- RE: TCP congestion Brian Knoll (TTNET) (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Stephen Wilcox (Jul 12)
(Thread continues...)
- RE: TCP congestion Brian Knoll (TTNET) (Jul 12)