Re: [tcpm] [Tmrg] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 17 November 2010 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 70F073A67FC for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:04:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 b385S58OyeYO for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB1B3A69AB for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkIFAC7u40xAaMHG/2dsb2JhbACUUo4BcaRUm0aFSwSEWIYAgww
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,213,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="219294115"
Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.193.198]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2010 23:04:55 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sin-vpn-client-21-45.cisco.com [10.68.21.45]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAHN2u7Z006839; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:04:48 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:04:49 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:04:49 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101117211525.3772C2521890@lawyers.icir.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:04:47 +0800
Message-Id: <098DFA22-6F71-4E82-8758-677D722449D9@cisco.com>
References: <20101117211525.3772C2521890@lawyers.icir.org>
To: mallman@icir.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>, tmrg <tmrg-interest@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Tmrg] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes
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, 17 Nov 2010 23:04:12 -0000

On Nov 18, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Mark Allman wrote:

> 
> Hi Fred!
> 
>> So, IW=2..4 demonstrably works pretty well everywhere, but IW=10 seems
>> to me only sensible on MPBS and GBPS, not KBPS, scale links.  
> 
> Question: How much do you think we should be able to expect from hosts /
> people connected via 56kbps?  There is a control they can use---the
> advertised window---to prevent IW=10 from being used on traffic sent
> their way.  Is it reasonable to expect outliers such as this to utilize
> such controls and not the defaults?

Not in my experience. They generally don't know much about the network.