IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ledbat] list of reasons for needing multiple TCP connections

"Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com> Tue, 02 December 2008 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ledbat-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tana-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tana-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCAC3A6ACF; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:47:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ledbat@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ledbat@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0B128C0DC for <ledbat@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:47:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, WHOIS_DMNBYPROXY=0.478]
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 mjyjQOr-D9FL for <ledbat@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from po-out-1718.google.com (po-out-1718.google.com [72.14.252.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BAE3A6AB7 for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by po-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id c31so4649794poi.4 for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.128.3 with SMTP id a3mr5528081rvd.232.1228186017477; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.20.16 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3efc39a60812011846q61469f5cle3bc5747e507300d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:46:57 -0800
From: Robb Topolski <robb@funchords.com>
To: "ledbat@ietf.org" <ledbat@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <493474B4.40607@bennett.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4925BDEE.6090101@isi.edu> <8c99930d0811201206yb0ef259v28c361438cb14773@mail.gmail.com> <DC2CEB0C-4C70-42CD-8ADE-AFF4E45B1915@shlang.com> <C3E8A5B2-16BE-47FD-9DD9-5AFCBA6BEBED@nokia.com> <492F27F3.3020309@bennett.com> <3efc39a60812011438s71066079s4b467eab43d7a998@mail.gmail.com> <49346C79.8090308@bennett.com> <3efc39a60812011527s361af2ben9a333f5f92bfa1cc@mail.gmail.com> <493474B4.40607@bennett.com>
Subject: Re: [ledbat] list of reasons for needing multiple TCP connections
X-BeenThere: ledbat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the LEDBAT WG <ledbat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ledbat>
List-Post: <mailto:ledbat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0122584152=="
Sender: ledbat-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ledbat-bounces@ietf.org

>
> Setting an expiration period of 5 minutes for UDP entries in a NAT table
> will certainly kill UTP. Is that what you really want, Robb?
>

Don't kill the messenger, Richard.  I'd love to tell you that it takes 180
seconds, but it simply doesn't. Whoever designed it decides It takes 300.

The mapping entries have to be kept around as long as there's any likelihood
> of traffic coming in for them, which can be a very long time for P2P.


How long, Richard?

A little more tech and a little less snark would actually be beneficial.
>

Was that for me?  Or, were are you quoting today's reviews of your article?

http://gigaom.com/2008/12/01/bittorrent-at-war-with-voip-hardly/

http://torrentfreak.com/will-utorrent-really-kill-the-internet-081201/

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/12/01/bittorrent-register-report-protocol-change-utter-nonsense

http://icrontic.com/articles/will-bittorrents-switch-to-udp-kill-the-internet

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/UDP-BitTorrent-Will-Destroy-The-Interwebs-99400




Robb



On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote:

>  Setting an expiration period of 5 minutes for UDP entries in a NAT table
> will certainly kill UTP. Is that what you really want, Robb? The mapping
> entries have to be kept around as long as there's any likelihood of traffic
> coming in for them, which can be a very long time for P2P.
>
> A little more tech and a little less snark would actually be beneficial.
>
>

-- 
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email