Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

Tue Nov 30 20:32:19 UTC 2010

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their
> server MTUs to 64 bytes.  That way, small HTTP request packets will be
> nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets.  If the content providers
> also turn off SACK, and force ACKs for each packet, they can achieve
> nearly the perfect traffic ratios the eyeball networks seem to desire.
> Small packet one way, equivalent small packet the other way, and
> everyone is happy.
> 
> Obviously those recent infidels pushing for the so-called "Jumbo Frames"
> here on NANOG were nothing more than shills for the eyeball networks,
> seeking to get more and more networks out of ratio, in an effort to get
> them to cough up money.  Fie on them, I say--instead of JumboFrames,
> we need MicroFrames!  Exchange points should start enforcing a maximum
> frame size of 64 bytes, to truly bring the internet into perfectly-balanced
> ratio-ness.

I was actually pondering that it may be worth it for some content
delivery networks to pay Apple and Microsoft to implement a TCP
option such that, when requested by the server, all ACKs get padded
to 1500 bytes.

:)

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20101130/57c83486/attachment.sig>