The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma

Wed Feb 5 18:49:39 UTC 1992

Brian,

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).

Marty
-----
 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
 that.

 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