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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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



George Tsirtsis wrote:
> Yes Joe, this is exactly what I am looking for, thanks.
> 
> I am somewhat concerned with taking something that is done over a
> single hop technology (GigE) and applying it blindly to the multi-hop
> Internet. e.g., one should think what this would do to packet
> fate-sharing and what it would mean for end nodes if/when the tunnel
> terminates on them etc.

Agreed. It also impacts packet fate sharing over lossy tunnels.

Thanks - I'll put that in the update.

Joe

> George
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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

iEYEARECAAYFAknH/DEACgkQE5f5cImnZrsIowCbBm7mQqRggZoUN8LUun+0DCg1
arUAnj2c6dUEzkRw/+7BOcZyG46l955L
=epMx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----