nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP and WAN issue
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:53:08 -0500
On 3/27/2007 8:44 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Jumbo frames are not [required], and in fact make little difference.
They are actually worse in some applications, since they have such a high propagation delay. Instead of streaming 6 segments spread across a 300 usec time window, you send a single segment that still requires 300 usec... not always with happy results. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Current thread:
- Re: TCP and WAN issue, (continued)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Marshall Eubanks (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Andre Oppermann (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Marshall Eubanks (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Simon Leinen (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Andre Oppermann (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Philip Lavine (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Roland Dobbins (Mar 27)
- RE: TCP and WAN issue michael.dillon (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Roland Dobbins (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Roland Dobbins (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Adrian Chadd (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Leo Bicknell (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Eric A. Hall (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Marshall Eubanks (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Philip Lavine (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Maimon (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Robert Boyle (Mar 28)