Re: [tcpm] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

[Jerry Chu <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Michael Welzl <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This just gave me an idea:
>
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
>
>> * Yuchung Cheng | 2010-11-10 12:04:48 [-0800]:
>>
>>> Let's do a reality check: today browsers open tens of flows simultaneously
>>> to work around small TCP IW (http://www.browserscope.org/  the "network
>>> tab). A study from AT&T and U of Mich also show 15% TCP flows observed in
>>> AT&T network already go over IW3. We want to bring this issue to the IETF
>>> community/experts to stop this downward spiral of sneaky unfair latency
>>> "tune-ups".
>>
>> Let's do a reality check: we talk about TCP not HTTP. ;-) To clearify it: the
>> draft address TCP, including FTP and all protocol built on top of TCP. I know
>> google paradigm is "everything over HTTP" ;) but customers of mine do not use
>> HTTP at all. TCP based file transfer and UDP based protocols are the lion
>> share.
>
> I've seen this argumentation again and again, going back and forth. So it seems that we have a lot of data, and many proponents saying that it might be worth trying to use IW=10 for the web... but a lot of people who argue against the IW=10 keep pointing out that HTTP isn't everything.
>
> Why not make this something that could be enabled on a per-socket basis? I mean, I can decide whether my socket does Nagle or not, why not let the programmer decide where in the range from 4 to 10 the IW should be, with a socket option or something?

I certainly won't object to this, if that's all it takes for
standardization. Unfortunately the
point for the non-convinced is they don't want ANY flows to use IW10
for fear of hurting
the performance of their flows.

Jerry

>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm