Re: [tcpm] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 14 August 2008 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878C33A680C; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3D33A680C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 YTEFB1nWcJ6T for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F81C3A67A8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7E0q1iJ013446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48A38186.2020101@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:51:18 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
References: <396556a20808111035s2b974233o1e9d3671e82e3350@mail.gmail.com> <20080813172752.AA7A650846@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131047q781675a3if23d727ef5ae918f@mail.gmail.com> <20080813181630.A1E6750848@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131145y1be0fb4saeb7bbf74d078268@mail.gmail.com> <20080813195027.C4C5B50848@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131307r65a9f6a0oe4365be029620b2c@mail.gmail.com> <20080813203607.1605A50846@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131440j6b685405xc0fd78b83fb4857a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <396556a20808131440j6b685405xc0fd78b83fb4857a@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

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



Adam Langley wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Eric Rescorla
<ekr@networkresonance.com> wrote:
|> You're right, it does suck as an argument. And given that it's
|> superficially implausible for the reasons you elided, I don't feel the
|> need to entertain this as a serious design objective.
|
| I certainly don't agree that it's superficially implausible. I shall
| ask someone senior here if I can release some of our latency affect
| data, although I doubt the answer will be positive.
|
| Remeber that > 40% of US homes are still using dial-up[1] and that's
| leveling out. Even if you are within the US, the RTT across the
| country on a dial-up is 300-400ms[2].

I think you're quoting >40% by assuming that anyone who doesn't use
broadband uses a modem (i.e., 100-57% = 43%), which isn't what those
charts indicate. The direct metric from citation [1] is Fig 2, which
shows less than 12% of homes using dialup right now, a figure that has
been steadily falling for the entire timeline shown.

[2] is a VERY old reference using a 10-year-old modem standard that
lasted only two years (1998-1999). V.92 superceded it in 1999.

I measured RTTs from LA to Boston, and found 200-220ms. Pings locally
were 140-150ms; the bulk of the increased ping delay was the modems.
Unless you're going through a satellite or a very inefficient multihop
radio system (e.g., anyone remember Metricom?), delays ought not exceed
around 150ms + broadband delays, e.g., they ought to top out around 250ms.

Joe

| [1] http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0804/
| [2] http://www.rohwer.org/Latency/Latency9.html
|
| AGL
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkijgAUACgkQE5f5cImnZrs8MgCdGyobw0N8ndbe7IZzCFBFS7gl
6ycAn2Qek6NLGikh+3H2HwYiyAHmiHix
=ak1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm