nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:00:20 +0100 (CET)
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Sam Stickland wrote:
But there's no need for AQM, just smaller buffers would make a huge difference.
Well, yes, buffering packets more than let's say 30-50ms on a 1 meg link doesn't make much sense. But doing some basic AQM would make things even better (some packets would see 0 buffering instead of 30ms).
Surely buffers that can store seconds worth of data are simply too big?
FIFO with seconds worth of data is just silly, yes. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- TCP congestion control and large router buffers Vasil Kolev (Dec 09)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 09)
- Message not available
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 13)
- Message not available
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 14)
- RE: TCP congestion control and large router buffers George Bonser (Dec 14)
- RE: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 14)
- Message not available
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 09)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Jim Gettys (Dec 20)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 20)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Sam Stickland (Dec 21)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Fred Baker (Dec 21)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Jim Gettys (Dec 22)
- Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers Fred Baker (Dec 22)
- RE: TCP congestion control and large router buffers George Bonser (Dec 22)