Re: [tcpm] Increasing the Initial Window - Notes

Marco Mellia <mellia@tlc.polito.it> Sat, 13 November 2010 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mellia@tlc.polito.it>
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 4E7963A6A46 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 IGcKd1f96uwf for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tlc.polito.it (baobab.polito.it [130.192.9.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 131043A6A43 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4732 invoked by uid 88); 13 Nov 2010 13:37:06 -0000
Received: from dynamic-adsl-94-34-217-180.clienti.tiscali.it (HELO MacMGM.local) (94.34.217.180) (smtp-auth username mellia@tlc.polito.it, mechanism cram-md5) by mail.tlc.polito.it (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:37:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4CDE947F.6070600@tlc.polito.it>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:37:03 +0100
From: Marco Mellia <mellia@tlc.polito.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; it; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
References: <20101110152857.GA5094@hell> <AANLkTi=RzbPbVRDQh7y-ydY-P7H16wDri=8EtXP5QuV3@mail.gmail.com> <20101111012453.GB2691@hell> <29E76BE6-32D9-45AD-85A1-791DAADDE520@ifi.uio.no> <AANLkTik69zRJ7XcWK7ZKCYaHPP0=Z6hnhP1SUnYP=d=8@mail.gmail.com> <824FC88F-4877-45DC-AFD9-E5272ACD7C3E@ifi.uio.no> <4CDBCA4E.8000705@tlc.polito.it> <9C745827-D861-45D0-B096-AFC3E4FE5182@ifi.uio.no> <AANLkTinMKHVf_HAQ-YT8K-Tq9jdmpqQXdgnQyS8+gAcd@mail.gmail.com> <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37316BF44877D@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <4CDD493B.6000201@tlc.polito.it><FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37316BF4314A0@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <4CDD59BE.60704@tlc.polito.it> <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0B65D203@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0B65D203@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TLC-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-TLC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-TLC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-2.388, required 4, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.07, BAYES_00 -2.60, FORGED_RCVD_HELO 0.14, RCVD_IN_PBL 0.00)
X-TLC-MailScanner-From: mellia@tlc.polito.it
Cc: tmrg-interest@icsi.berkeley.edu, tcpm@ietf.org, L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 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: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:36:41 -0000

> It appears to me, that we are now discussing if the undoubtedly
> increased packet loss rate (~ +24%) is more troublesome (to the network)
> than the faster delivery of objects (to the clients) (~ -13%). And, as
> mentioned above, will the increased aggressiveness of flows (because
> fast recovery may be leading to more load early on) hurt the network
> beyond that...

Ciao Richard,

My concern related to mobile device is not about them, but about the 
network.
Which is pretty much what you sat above...
Today, 3G networks are already overloaded, with the bottleneck being the 
downlink capacity at the baystation.
If servers move from IW3 to IW10, that would definitively impact that 
bottleneck.
The problem is not what happens on gigabit per second, uncongested paths.
The problem is what happens on low capacity, already congested paths. 
And mobile networks seems to me to be a good example of the latter.

Ciao
Marco