nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning?
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:47:16 -0500
Leo Bicknell wrote:
As network operators we have to get out of the mind set that "packetdrops are bad".
They are bad.
TCP needs drops to manage to the right speed.
This is whats bad. TCP should be slightly more intelligent and start considering rtt jitter as its primary source of congestion information.
Designing L2 network performance to optimize a l3 protocol is backwards.
Current thread:
- Re: Shady areas of TCP window autotuning?, (continued)
- 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? Leo Bicknell (Mar 16)
- 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)