IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 03 February 2010 17:12 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 D8F3C28C17B for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:12:00 -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 a18LvzMwXUKl for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B08E28C191 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [70.213.181.125] (125.sub-70-213-181.myvzw.com [70.213.181.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o13HC46k018128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B69AE64.8070608@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:12:04 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kacheong Poon <kacheong.poon@sun.com>
References: <7BE9742D-6EDC-43FE-84FC-D22C52D23152@nokia.com> <4B69A53E.2050508@isi.edu> <4B69ACD9.1030105@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B69ACD9.1030105@sun.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5EFD1BC2FB35887A0F814F68"
X-MailScanner-ID: o13HC46k018128
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
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 17:12:01 -0000


Kacheong Poon wrote:
> 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..."

Agreed. The point is to what extent TCP is modified for fractional
benefits for specific communities. TCP is "optimized" to always work,
but not to work especially well in any particular environment.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email