IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning

Kacheong Poon <kacheong.poon@sun.com> Wed, 03 February 2010 17:04 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 E603E3A69E2 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:04:54 -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 VuIV73RS2dj3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:04:54 -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 DFA6E3A6B2D for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:04:49 -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 o13H5WWl020519 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:05:32 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 o13H5UuP204184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B69ACD9.1030105@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:05:29 +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>
In-Reply-To: <4B69A53E.2050508@isi.edu>
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:04:55 -0000

On 02/ 4/10 12:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:

> I'm curious about the tests described. 200ms seems very high for an RTT.
> Even over a cell wireless link (3G), I see latencies that are typically
> half that. I wonder what the improvement is for a 50-80ms RTT.


I suspect that it depends on how your view of Internet is.  From where
I am physically located, RTT to my company's internal network is
around 200ms.  It is the normal RTT I live with for doing my day to
day work.  I hope folks won't take a "country-centric" view on Internet
traffic.  People all over the world are communicating with each other.
The Internet is really not that "small..."



-- 

						K. Poon.
						kacheong.poon@sun.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email