Re: [Int-area] Packing in draft-touch-intarea-tunnels-00.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, George,

George Tsirtsis wrote:
> Was just looking at draft-touch-intarea-tunnels-00.txt
> 
> The section on "Packing (ala GigE bursting)" in this draft is a bit strange.
> Although this is under a section listing known "issues" with
> tunnels/fragmentation, it is not clear what the authors think about
> it.
> It is almost written as if the authors believe that tunnel packing is
> a "good thing", is that true or am I mis-interpretatiing?

The point of the doc is to be objective. That means pros, cons, and
caveats. The doc isn't fully matured, though, and some sections have
more detail than others. This probably needs development, e.g.:

It you're sending lots of 40-byte packets over a tunnel that can support
500-byte packets, then you can do so more efficiently by using packing.
However, you do run the risk of introducing timing artifacts (bursts)
into the traffic that goes through the tunnel, and this assumes that
enough packets arrive at the tunnel ingress to be useful to pack - a
tunnel ingress shouldn't delay packets just to pack them.

I.e., there are pros (efficiency), cons (timing effects), and caveats
(no additional queuing delay just to aggregate).

Is that what you were looking for? is that reasonable?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknH9kQACgkQE5f5cImnZrsgNACfdrnFvtaMbS4sry2sU17iLGzH
85oAoIUhN9OzKk6z644KdCmzjLEMuyf9
=cPCM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----