The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma
Martin Lee Schoffstall
schoff at psi.com
Wed Feb 5 18:49:39 UTC 1992
We see similiar problems, functional capability for interactive
applications like telnet is MUCH better through the CIX than through
the NSFNet. When "SaltLakeCity" has its normal problems (we've seen
about a dozen in January, and we're not looking really) then it goes
through the roof.
Leveraging off another posting elsewhere, I was wondering how hard it
would be for cisco to change their architecture to have multiple routing
tables and slightly modify their protocol prioritization scheme so that
telnet/rlogin is not just prioritized but goes out a different path
(specifically the CIX path).
My comments are based on some tests that I ran a couple of weeks ago.
Latency between Stanford and MIT via the T3 NSFnet was much greater
than an equivalent path via CIX/Alternet (about 50% longer delay via
the NSFnet). The results were repeatable and consistent. Throughput
was also lower but I attribute that to the longer latency and limited
TCP window size.
The bottom line was that the performance as seen by a standard
workstation using standard networking tools was better via CIX. I
suspect that very large windows would push the throughput performance
in favor of the NSFnet but I do not have the tools right now to test
Anybody have a TCP with large windows I can play with?
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Lloyd & Associates
Principal and Network Architect 3420 Sudbury Road
brian at lloyd.com Cameron Park, CA 95682
voice (916) 676-1147 -or- (415) 725-1392
More information about the NANOG