Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 21:00 UTC
Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DE81A87B2; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJlTkbFQtKxZ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D951A87E0; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z107so3250764qgd.10; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:00:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=r7tLXaYX6st92TbOEDwCSIyVTDh5Z2DZFNtgDBnYt+0=; b=RhnotvByMjzPW+7LAa4qwP8mlajTQktvIRF/SFDwJPTjxcmLXh+hPrF6OEjBmYevSf XD6cHG9bxI41c145lSXysG/cSm9y0+oTsPqOEpZ7xWlo5r4wwjlbuh9Rc52L326ZartO QdeksQmsIeXVHKieuGs4si44K1I13c5Oogy6iNcD7BaMgD2ZMwq3SdDjXJ3A4rrFZHDu gOuETyfHhYEBlGLjY6fOd+Pdut9Wn/Mxkqfq7ORWcJ8/vxsL2iYlLXj5W+97SzNomEKx AhNBYRpJXY0jSkSSlKLPAABzfkiUfMlo9cWxdWcx+Qsccixmg9H+KAAumk5tLFUR6QnZ HLog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.91.201 with SMTP id z67mr463173qgd.27.1423083629125; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.49.33 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:00:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjM412i4NbXhYajSKdrP2FTa7sBbu8Fca1yA9g6QWjYGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwgb9L9bUG6ommBDYJzQTCU1cC_zLSEf_5JPeJ+c=yrYmA@mail.gmail.com> <5DF6DC77-E476-408F-9FA5-F107DDC9F857@netapp.com> <CAMm+LwjM412i4NbXhYajSKdrP2FTa7sBbu8Fca1yA9g6QWjYGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:00:29 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0VMJnC-tp395R4g46OouqxIxEro
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaxapXeCBE3cNJeO6b6RXHoc+RJdSLsb046qz+nvQk-3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Fsnem-rg60aZ3T_yZOfi-MBnDEo>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 21:00:43 -0000
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote: > I know that traditionally we have considered congestion control to be a per > connection thing rather than per process or per user. Those don't exactly > exist in the Internet model. But if we consider DDoS to be an extreme form > of congestion, we have to look at the O/S implementing broader rate limiting > anyway. I'm not sure this scales in a useful manner...especially if you want (for instance) to be able to read from your cloud/nas/etc at 'line rate' but then limit access rates to other places because of 'dos' concerns. Policy for that is not going to be clear, or simple, or reasonable. > If the case for multiple streams is better performance based on friendlier > slow start parameters, maybe these should be allowed without the end run. If > the net is surviving with people starting five streams instead of one, maybe > the slow start parameters could start at five packets per destination host > instead of one per connection. It would be a little more code to implement > but speed is hardly an issue where its purpose is throttling anyway. More connections means you may avoid the 'random early drop' problem for some of your connections, right? Presuming somewhere between src/dest there's a thinner pipe (or more full pipe) and RED/etc is employed (or just queue drops in general), putting all your eggs in one connection basket is less helpful than 5 connection baskets. One connection (one traditional http/tcp connection) also means object serialization gets you as well. (I think roberto alludes to this above)
- Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Roberto Peon
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Donald Eastlake
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels David Morris
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Eggert, Lars
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Christopher Morrow
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Christopher Morrow
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Martin Rex
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Jim Gettys
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Jim Gettys
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [tsvwg] Naive question on multiple TCP/IP cha… Piers O'Hanlon
- Re: [tsvwg] Naive question on multiple TCP/IP cha… Jim Gettys
- Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels Wesley Eddy