nanog mailing list archives
RE: Satellite latency
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:11:29 -0800
Jim Mercer wrote:
if you adjust the window size on the sending and receiving systems, you can improve this, but this solution is impractical, as you would need to get everyone on the internet (or at least all of the webservers and websurfers you are servicing) to make adjustments to their local TCP stack.
The receiver is the one that informs the sender how large of a window it can accept, so it can be practical for a subscriber installation. It wouldn't be a good idea to park a bunch of servers behind one of these links, but any receiving node that set its TCP receive window to 2x the byte/sec capacity of the link should see decent throughput. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: Satellite latency Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 26)
- Re: Satellite latency Leo Bicknell (Feb 26)
- Re: Satellite latency Brett Frankenberger (Feb 26)
- Re: Satellite latency Michael Painter (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Jim Mercer (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Jim Mercer (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Joe Abley (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 27)
- RE: Satellite latency Tony Hain (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Leo Bicknell (Feb 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Satellite latency Rowland, Alan D (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Dickson, Brian (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Simon Lyall (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Chrisy Luke (Feb 27)
- Re: Satellite latency Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 27)
- RE: Satellite latency Jeb R. Linton (Feb 28)
- Re: Satellite latency Clayton Fiske (Feb 28)