nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning?
From: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog () panix com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:21:01 -0500
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:48:42PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
It was my understanding that (most) cable modems are L2 devices -- how it is that they have a buffer, other than what the network processor needs to switch it?
The Ethernet is typically faster than the upstream cable channel. So it needs some place to put the data that arrives from the Ethernet port until it gets sent upstream. This has nothing to do with layer 2 / layer 3. Any device connecting between media of different speeds (or connecting more than two ports -- creating the possibility of contention) would need some amount of buffering. -- Brett
Current thread:
- Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Marian Ďurkovič (Mar 16)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? David Andersen (Mar 16)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Leo Bicknell (Mar 16)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Wayne E. Bouchard (Mar 16)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Lars Eggert (Mar 16)
- RE: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Frank Bulk - iName.com (Mar 16)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Brett Frankenberger (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Leo Bicknell (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Marian Ďurkovič (Mar 18)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Leo Bicknell (Mar 18)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Marian Ďurkovič (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Joe Maimon (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? John Schnizlein (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Tony Finch (Mar 17)
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning? Lars Eggert (Mar 17)