IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Fri, 19 November 2010 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.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 19E4B28C0E7 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:53:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 JfRU2vGI5eG4 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:53:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE0A28C0E4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oAJ7sTAW032496 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:30 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1290153270; bh=ff9B+XD1lMa4WHbWGgtgk0Xn5wc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Content-Type; b=TQ7pTvzGGvTVWPxqHHrx6Hyeay+0cABWJLKKFxqLolE32cuC2WKLRLSMthayoFv9l WkxynQABDe3V9VyS8vndA==
Received: from qyk38 (qyk38.prod.google.com [10.241.83.166]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oAJ7rluL024846 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:28 -0800
Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38so8319225qyk.9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=6GF40xtV7X0pi5VwmXBJo+GzuRIDUr0/t20/ElDga/Q=; b=GjA3GPbD+emBUo0BmMsbP9SEgXfZE6SWQ8sa9wXrImIjmFjTqCX5IfCarHQ3j84PbF +/Ego4z4yH0tOvPTSeSg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=x0jq3y1xPtp+zy3i3wRZ3flMP2C9lBFjY1xhjdTstRMAUQtpRO1O4soaGVkliB+780 Zikprucuj0ua4pf1RArw==
Received: by 10.229.87.13 with SMTP id u13mr1503856qcl.202.1290153268282; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.202.141 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20101119042433.BB2EE255A476@lawyers.icir.org>
References: <4CE58FED.608@isi.edu> <20101119042433.BB2EE255A476@lawyers.icir.org>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:54:07 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikw6SF_NVt7QHe8Xx6JcOn=-j3R1B_TJihFPi1V@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
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: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:53:43 -0000

We, authors on IW10, take changing TCP seriously so we proceed with
scientific methods. We did these in live servers and lab tests to
achieve the best possible reality. We took feedbacks from IETF members
to refine our methods after two meetings. In the mean time, Ilpo from
U of Helsinki, and Michael Scharf from Lucent-Alcatel have each done
_independent_ experiments for IW10. None of us find any alarming
fairness issues between IW10/IW3.

For people who are concerned about possible problems of IW10 in
various network scenarios, can they kindly volunteer to help verify
these issues by similar testbed/live experiments? If IW10 turns out to
be a bad idea, we (tcpm/tmrg members) can all learn from these
studies/insights and figure a better solution.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email