nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP congestion
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:18:21 -0400
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:07:00AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone explain how a TCP conversation could degenerate into congestion avoidance on a long fat pipe if there is no packet/segment loss or out of order segments? Here is the situation: WAN = 9 Mbps ATM connection between NY and LA (70 ms delay)
Do you know there is no cell loss on your ATM path? Have you also accounted for SAR overhead? Do you know if they use any sort of cell-chaining technology in their network to reduce overhead? - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Current thread:
- TCP congestion Philip Lavine (Jul 12)
- RE: TCP congestion Brian Knoll (TTNET) (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Fred Baker (Jul 12)
- Re: TCP congestion Jared Mauch (Jul 12)
- 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)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- 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)
(Thread continues...)
- RE: TCP congestion Brian Knoll (TTNET) (Jul 12)