Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning
Kacheong Poon <kacheong.poon@sun.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 11:37 UTC
Return-Path: <kacheong.poon@sun.com>
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 7151828C0EF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 03:37:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 d+rPnCggMHEr for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 03:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D10728C126 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 03:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.59]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o14Bc4q0023185 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:38:04 GMT
Received: from [10.7.251.223] (punchin-kcpoon.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.223]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o14Bc2lh373456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 03:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B6AB199.2020701@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:38:01 +0800
From: Kacheong Poon <kacheong.poon@sun.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100115 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <7BE9742D-6EDC-43FE-84FC-D22C52D23152@nokia.com> <4B69A53E.2050508@isi.edu> <4B69ACD9.1030105@sun.com> <4B69AE64.8070608@isi.edu> <10EDB15A-0DF6-45EE-897C-E38AA611134C@ifi.uio.no> <4B69B030.3000508@isi.edu> <D70C30EF-91E3-4DB6-B0C7-0A6328C77E6A@ifi.uio.no> <4B69B5AC.1090209@isi.edu> <d1c2719f1002031225w24f1bb2anf89467fffe8e5971@mail.gmail.com> <316A6EC9-03FF-4A11-9E1E-084220A8146A@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <316A6EC9-03FF-4A11-9E1E-084220A8146A@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:37:20 -0000
On 02/ 4/10 06:10 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Without trying to get into a debate on engineering vs. research, I would > say that the research community's perception of TCP research is that, > indeed, such a change is a valid research question. That's not because > of a need to find the "best, elegant, risk free solution", but because > of the need to make sure that it's a solution that's safe to deploy. > > This is indeed at odds with needs for timeliness - but your need for > that can't be the basis for lowering the bar about significant changes > to TCP in the IETF. Something interesting to "chit-chat" during coffee break... I think the history of the current RFC 3390 limit is like the following. Please correct me if I am wrong. The original limit was 1. But because of an implementation mistake in BSD, the reality was actually 2. And IETF accepted the reality. Then folks realized that during slow start, TCP almost always sent a burst of 3 segments because of delayed ACK. So people thought that around 4380 (3 * 1460 bytes which is a common segment size) was fine and came up with a formula as in RFC 3390. Just wondering, if there were no bug, would the initial cwnd be increased almost 10 years ago? Note that I am not trying to start a debate on history nor reality vs research ;-) -- K. Poon. kacheong.poon@sun.com
- [tcpm] TCP tuning Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Biswas, Anumita
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Biswas, Anumita
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Murali Bashyam
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Marco Mellia
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mike Belshe
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Alexander Zimmermann
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Andrew Yourtchenko
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mike Belshe
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch