IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [75attendees] rica network

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 24 July 2009 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: 75attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 75attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1593A69DB for <75attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.072
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.527, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kto-JMGbta7t for <75attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C6828C141 for <75attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSmpCgkFycxlKqYKP9v+BqmslsTgTwsmx@postini.com; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:52 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (exchange-10.nominum.com [64.89.228.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "exchange-10.win.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349A51B835E; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exchange-10.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.57]) by exchange-10.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.57]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:46 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@iformata.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:45 -0700
Thread-Topic: [75attendees] rica network
Thread-Index: AcoMtKrNzaLKBTX8R0mbPZWnXFF82wAAGIth
Message-ID: <23CEFBAC26A6814695D4872E1CE3B1AC06C143F9@exchange-10.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
References: <m23a8mrxmb.wl%randy@psg.com> <A8649C1A-B374-42ED-AFA2-8FC8F091669E@muada.com>, <D27B70F5-FAE3-4870-BDA6-304C72D169C7@iformata.com>
In-Reply-To: <D27B70F5-FAE3-4870-BDA6-304C72D169C7@iformata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "75attendees@ietf.org" <75attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [75attendees] rica network
X-BeenThere: 75attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <75attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/75attendees>, <mailto:75attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/75attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:75attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:75attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/75attendees>, <mailto:75attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:23:59 -0000

On Friday, July 24, 2009 4:15 PM Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> Lots of UDP video or filesharing ?

I always suspect Skype, but I don't know how realistic that is.   Most of the really bandwidth-intensive protocols on the Internet either use multiple TCP streams to get more than their fair share of the bandwidth, or use UDP (which means they still *could* implement TCP-like congestion detection, but aren't forced to, and would have to go to a great deal of trouble to do so).

I suspect that most of the video applications actually use TCP streams - e.g., doesn't YouTube just use straight flash video over a single TCP/IP connection?   This would be subject to congestion control, and thus ought to share bandwidth fairly well with you.

Of course, ping has no congestion control, so perhaps Randy is the real culprit here...   ;')

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email