nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:32:19 -0800
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the content providers also turn off SACK, and force ACKs for each packet, they can achieve nearly the perfect traffic ratios the eyeball networks seem to desire. Small packet one way, equivalent small packet the other way, and everyone is happy. Obviously those recent infidels pushing for the so-called "Jumbo Frames" here on NANOG were nothing more than shills for the eyeball networks, seeking to get more and more networks out of ratio, in an effort to get them to cough up money. Fie on them, I say--instead of JumboFrames, we need MicroFrames! Exchange points should start enforcing a maximum frame size of 64 bytes, to truly bring the internet into perfectly-balanced ratio-ness.
I was actually pondering that it may be worth it for some content delivery networks to pay Apple and Microsoft to implement a TCP option such that, when requested by the server, all ACKs get padded to 1500 bytes. :) -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions, (continued)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Joe Provo (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jeff Wheeler (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 29)
- Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 29)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] John Curran (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Leo Bicknell (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Matthew Petach (Nov 30)
- Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions] Leo Bicknell (Nov 30)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions Steven Fischer (Nov 29)
- Message not available
- RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Ben Butler (Nov 29)