nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () efes iucc ac il>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:49:28 +0300 (IDT)
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Kevin Day wrote:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:What is really necessary is to detect just the flows that need to slowdown, and selectively discard just one packet at the right time, but not more, per TCP cycle. Discarding too many will cause a flow to stall -- we see this when Web access takes forever. ... i wouldn't want to get in an argument with somebody who was smart and savvy enough to invent packet switching during the year i entered kindergarden, but, somebody told me once that keeping information on every flow was *not* "inexpensive." should somebody tell dr. roberts?
I suggest reading the excellent page: "High-Speed TCP Variants": http://kb.pert.geant2.net/PERTKB/TcpHighSpeedVariants Enough material there to keep NANOG readers busy all weekend long. -Hank
Current thread:
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot), (continued)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 05)
- Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)) Jeroen Massar (Apr 05)
- Re: Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)) Roland Dobbins (Apr 05)
- RE: Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)) Lincoln Dale (Apr 05)
- RE: Flow Based Routing/Switching (Was: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)) michael.dillon (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Kevin Day (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Paul Vixie (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Kevin Day (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) David Andersen (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Sam Stickland (Apr 07)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Paul Vixie (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Hank Nussbacher (Apr 05)
- RE: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Charles N Wyble (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Jorge Amodio (Apr 05)
- Message not available
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Hank Nussbacher (Apr 05)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 07)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Kevin Day (Apr 07)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 07)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Mike Gonnason (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Marcin Cieslak (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Greg Skinner (Apr 08)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Mike Gonnason (Apr 09)