Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern?

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Sun, 19 February 2006 23:37 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1-ext.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FAy7Q-00056S-Sg; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:37:32 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FAy7O-00055p-Mc; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:37:30 -0500
Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu ([171.67.16.138]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FAy7N-0001H1-AM; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:37:30 -0500
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k1JNbMKs010807; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:37:22 -0800
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 56567E78D2; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:37:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <43F8FE0F.3060309@dcrocker.net> (Dave Crocker's message of "Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:23:59 -0800")
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <20060219013238.779CC22241D@laser.networkresonance.com> <43F8FE0F.3060309@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:37:22 -0800
Message-ID: <874q2uj4y5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.18 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc:
Subject: Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> writes:

> Is it true that we no longer need to worry about regularly adding extra
> round-trips to popular protocols that operate over the open Internet?

It was certainly a significant issue that was much-discussed in the
working group when we were working on the new NNTP standards.  People
maintaining major commercial NNTP services said that excessive round trips
were a performance concern for them.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf