On 22-aug-2005, at 17:14, David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and co
"Howard, W. Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do carrier ISPs classify their voice traffic as Really
> Important, and everybody else's data as Best Effort? This
> isn't just selfishness, since We All Know voice is less
> tolerant of latency and jitter than TCP.
We do?
Try to keep a single-
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:58:02PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Most networks I have touched that have seen fit to deploy some kind
> of "quality of service" mechanism have done so in order to
> deliberately degrade service in inverse proportion to what people are
> prepared to spend. This i
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:41:31AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> I think the key here is "when you are suffering congestion".
>
> RS said that queueing delay is irrelevant when the link was between
> 60% and > 97% full, depending on the speed of the link. If you have
> a link which i
On 22-Aug-2005, at 11:14, David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and co
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:14:04AM -0400, David Hagel wrote:
> This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
> queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
> components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
> extensive techniques for qu
Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive te
Tony Finch wrote:
TCP performs much better if queueing delays are short, because that
means it gets feedback from packet drops more promptly, and its RTT
measurements are more accurate so the retransmission timeout doesn't get
artificially inflated.
Sure, but sending speculative duplicate
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
> David Hagel wrote:
>
> > This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
> > queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
> > components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
> > extensive tech
On 8/22/2005 11:14 AM, David Hagel wrote:
> This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
> queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
> components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
> extensive techniques for queue management and
David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and congestion control
(including
On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 8/22/2005 11:14 AM, David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed
delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all
David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and congestion control
(includin
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and congestion control
(including TCP congestion contr
David Hagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would there be any data out there on what fraction from this 60ms to
> 80ms RTT is raw propagation delay and what fraction is typical packet
> queuing delay at intermediate switches? Does queuing delay play much
> of a role at all these days? Or is it al
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:38:32 PDT, David Hagel said:
> Would there be any data out there on what fraction from this 60ms to
> 80ms RTT is raw propagation delay and what fraction is typical packet
> queuing delay at intermediate switches? Does queuing delay play much
> of a role at all these days? O
Richard,
Thanks for the highly informative answer.
Would there be any data out there on what fraction from this 60ms to
80ms RTT is raw propagation delay and what fraction is typical packet
queuing delay at intermediate switches? Does queuing delay play much
of a role at all these days? Or is it
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:13:39PM -0400, David Hagel wrote:
>
> I was wondering what are the typical coast-to-coast propagation and
> queuing delays observed by today's backbone networks in North America.
> Is there any data/study which provides a breakdown of different
> components of such end-
I was wondering what are the typical coast-to-coast propagation and
queuing delays observed by today's backbone networks in North America.
Is there any data/study which provides a breakdown of different
components of such end-to-end delays in today's backbone networks?
Thanks,
David
19 matches
Mail list logo
