923Mbits/s across the ocean

E.B. Dreger eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Sat Mar 8 18:25:26 UTC 2003


LC> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:04:20 -0800
LC> From: "Cottrell, Les"


LC> The remarks about window size and buffer are interesting
LC> also.  It is true large windows are needed. To approach
LC> 1Gbits/s we require 40MByte windows.  If this is going to be
LC> a problem, then we need to raise question like this soon and
LC> figure out how to address (add more memory, use other
LC> protocols etc.). In practice to approcah 2.5Gbits/s requires
LC> 120MByte windows.

Yup.  About 2x to 2.5x the bandwidth*delay product.

I'm still curious about insane SACK or maybe NACK.  Spray TCP
packets hoping they arrive (good odds), and wait to hear what
made or didn't make it.  Let the receiving end have the large
buffers... sending machines generally must handle a greater
number of sessions.  ECN also would be a nice way of telling a
sender to back off, [hopefully] proactively avoiding packet loss.

It certainly seems a shame to require big sending buffers and
slow down entire streams just in case a small bit gets lost.


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.




More information about the NANOG mailing list