IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [p2pi] TANA proposed charter -- packet marking question

Stanislav Shalunov <shalunov@shlang.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3393A689A; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5669F3A694E for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kqb3MfarXY9C for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201CF3A68C4 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c49so238146wra.17 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.92.4 with SMTP id p4mr1340167anb.3.1224873190757; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.1.103? (c-67-188-243-194.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.243.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h9sm559792wxd.4.2008.10.24.11.33.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <AA245D5B-E53E-47E8-9665-F60114B3BFC8@shlang.com>
From: Stanislav Shalunov <shalunov@shlang.com>
To: tana@ietf.org, p2pi@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C19968F8-28BF-4BE1-B582-798DC45849CA@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:33:06 -0700
References: <36BFC323-FDD5-42DD-9A17-F32DDE7DDF5E@cisco.com> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC707E291F2@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <3615ACF9-49D1-4D66-A1AE-345684CF1A9D@shlang.com> <20081024145218.GB88592@verdi> <C19968F8-28BF-4BE1-B582-798DC45849CA@icsi.berkeley.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Subject: Re: [p2pi] TANA proposed charter -- packet marking question
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

On Oct 24, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
> NAT box or DSL modem (not sure which at this moment) has a 3 second  
> packet buffer, and simple FIFO behavior.

I'm willing to bet it's the DSL modem and that the actual buffer size  
is a binary-round number, likely 64kB.

The NAT box isn't naturally a bottleneck and the brand you have  
doesn't attempt to impose an artificial one.

By the way, buffer provisioning for slow links is a problem that's  
harder than the "one RTT worth divided by whatnot" rule makes it out  
to be.  If anyone who makes DSL/cable modems is listening, please  
don't just cut the buffer -- it may well do more harm than good.

--
Stanislav Shalunov



_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email