nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)
From: Sam Stickland <sam_mailinglists () spacething org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:29:05 +0100
Kevin Day wrote:
Yeah, I guess the point I was trying to make is that once you throw SACK into the equation you lose the assumption that if you drop TCP packets, TCP slows down. Before New Reno, fast-retransmit and SACK this was true and very easy to model. Now you can drop a considerable number of packets and TCP doesn't slow down very much, if at all. If you're worried about data that your clients are downloading you're either throwing away data from the server (which is wasting bandwidth getting all the way to you) or throwing away your clients' ACKs. Lost ACKs do almost nothing to slow down TCP unless you've thrown them *all* away.If this was true surely it would mean that drop models such WRED/RED are becoming useless?
Sam
Current thread:
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot), (continued)
- Re: "Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot) Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- 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) Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- 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)