Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Mark Allman wrote:
> >> Making TCP smarter is fine; doing so at the expense of robustness is
> >> not.
> >
> > I'll agree with this and push back at the same time.  I agree that
> > robustness is important and should be protected.  However, I have
> > increasingly come to view things like initial RTOs and initial cwnds,
> > and etc. as not buying us much robustness.  What buys us robustness is
> > the reaction---any reaction---to indications there might be problems.
> > These gross notions are more important than any small parameter change
> > it seems to me.
>
> I agree that changes to initial parameters are much less important than
> the convergence/reaction mechanism that governs them afterwards - today.
> That's because of the paradox that most of the connections are short,
> but most of the bytes belong to long connections.
>
> We do need to be careful that whatever we do doesn't overwhelm these
> assumptions and change the game, however.
>
> Regarding init cwnds, I'd like to see a reasonable level of analysis of
> the impact. It's not enough to drive discussions with "we have to RIGHT
> NOW!" to satisfy a (often underinformed) perception of need.
>

Has anyone, on this list or otherwise, suggested that we should change these
items "RIGHT NOW" or without a "reasonable level of analysis"?

I think we'd all be better served to stipulate that everyone on this list
wants to help make smart improvements and stop implying otherwise.

Mike

> Joe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>