nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP congestion
From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox () packetrade com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:14:42 +0100
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:54:56PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12-jul-2007, at 22:27, Philip Lavine wrote:I just don't understand how if there is 1 segment that gets lost how this could translate to such a catastrophic long period of slow- start. How can I minimize the impact of the inevitable segment loss/out of order over a WAN. Is QoS the only option?Also note that minimal amounts of cell loss on ATM create huge amounts of packet loss at the IP layer.
from the phrases used ('catastrophic') my feeling is that perhaps Philip isnt understanding that on a high speed TCP transfer a single missing bit of data can cause the whole thing to stop and restart transmission from slow Steve
Current thread:
- Re: TCP congestion, (continued)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: TCP congestion Kevin Loch (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Joel Jaeggli (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Leigh Porter (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 12)