At Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:07:36 -0800,
julian wrote:
>
> and secondly, does anyone have any experience with this sort of problem?
>
Here is a paper on the subject:
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2002-January/001705.html
Later,
George
_
Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
0n Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:03PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>DeltaT SEQ-SRTR:SEQ_ENDpacket#
>--
>346853 2856:2920(64)1
>370821 2920:4368(1448) 2
>004410 8712:10160(1448) 6
>
0n Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:03PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>DeltaT SEQ-SRTR:SEQ_ENDpacket#
>--
>346853 2856:2920(64)1
>370821 2920:4368(1448) 2
>004410 8712:10160(1448) 6
>007848 12608:1405
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s aggregated.
At leat it looks that way to me when I get to see it. however I have
only be
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s aggregated.
> >>At leat it looks that way to me when I get to see it. however I have
> >>only been able
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:00:52AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s
aggregated.
At leat it looks that way to me when
I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s
aggregated. At leat it looks that way to me when I get to see it.
however I have only been able to get 60kB.sec across this,
despite having a tcp window size of 131072 bytes.. After
investigation it appears that the link is massively
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:00:52AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s
> >>aggregated.
> >>At leat it looks that way to me when
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s aggregated.
At leat it looks that way to me when I get to see it. however I have
only been able to get
60kB.sec across this, despite having a tcp
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:07:36PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> I have a link which is provided by someone else that is 7 x E1s aggregated.
> At leat it looks that way to me when I get to see it. however I have
> only been able to get
> 60kB.sec across this, despite having a tcp window size
Eli Dart wrote:
In reply to Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
I have no control over or access to the link.. all I have is a promise
that they will deliver
14Mb/Sec. with approc 300mSec. RTT to me but there is no promise about
packet order.
My guess is that they are doing round-robin
In reply to Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> I have no control over or access to the link.. all I have is a promise
> that they will deliver
> 14Mb/Sec. with approc 300mSec. RTT to me but there is no promise about
> packet order.
My guess is that they are doing round-robin load balanci
12 matches
Mail list logo
