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

Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Fri, 24 October 2008 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48013A6BFD; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A143A6BFB; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.779
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.820, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEFvZSNsQKZX; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE153A6BD4; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (fruitcake []) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ( with ESMTP id m9OHOnTd008358; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <13265179-F62E-480F-B233-0F6160EC5701@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
From: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
To: John Leslie <>
In-Reply-To: <20081024161246.GD88592@verdi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:24:49 -0700
References: <> <> <> <20081024145218.GB88592@verdi> <> <20081024161246.GD88592@verdi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc:,, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: [p2pi] TANA proposed charter -- packet marking question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"

On Oct 24, 2008, at 9:12 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>> I start a full rate, SINGLE TCP flow to this remote system.  The ping
>> time jumps up to 3 seconds!  Yes, the stupid NAT box or DSL modem  
>> (not
>> sure which at this moment) has a 3 second packet buffer, and simple
>> FIFO behavior.  Any full rate upload and I can kiss my connection
>> goodbye.  Period.  End of story.  Have a nice day.
>   Fortunately, the Linksys _could_ be easily programmed to fix that --
> and if the problem becomes obvious enough to enough buyers, the
> competition will fix it...

I disagree.

I've had DSL or cable modem connectivity for damn-near a decade now.   
And fixing it is easy: the data rates are trivial, the devices are  
often programmable, and the solution straightforward: just have only  
30ms of packet buffer, not 3s.  Yet these devices STILL have this  

And the only reason that as a clued user it would be fixable if its  
the Linksys box is I DELIBERATELY purchased the version where I can  
replace the firmware to fix something the vendors refused to fix for  
themselves.  And I just unplugged the linksys: its the DSL modem,  
purchased within the past 2.5 years.

(The reason its not a problem for me is I don't use P2P apps, and only  
rarely upload large quantities of photos)

So I think the conclusion should be there has been a market failure in  
this area, and that absent a miracle, this problem will remain.

p2pi mailing list