IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 03 February 2010 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 5F95C3A68B0 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:21:27 -0800 (PST)
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=[AWL=0.000, 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 U83RN6bds3Vw for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839B93A6876 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [70.213.251.114] (114.sub-70-213-251.myvzw.com [70.213.251.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o13MKGNt013028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B69F69F.3030503@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:20:15 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jerry Chu <hkchu@google.com>
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> <8FCC1879-FBA4-4A5F-8ADF-932A6731B7EA@ifi.uio.no> <4B69C35F.9080903@isi.edu> <d1c2719f1002031248q2eb05845ycd32a63f7d05dae@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1c2719f1002031248q2eb05845ycd32a63f7d05dae@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig393E238C35FC0D9CDCC4C19E"
X-MailScanner-ID: o13MKGNt013028
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Kacheong Poon <kacheong.poon@sun.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:21:27 -0000


Jerry Chu wrote:
...
> The following is quoted from RFC3150 (a BCP):
> 
>    "Implementors should consider the possibility that a host will be
>    directly connected to a low-speed link when choosing default TCP
>    receive window sizes."

Yup. "Be conservative in what you do".

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email