On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a vendor specific issue :(
>
> Absolutely, but this is way too typical for these kinds of networks.
>
>> Good tcp vs default tcp will not close the window tight due to some
>> ep
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Sounds like a vendor specific issue :(
Absolutely, but this is way too typical for these kinds of networks.
Good tcp vs default tcp will not close the window tight due to some
ephemeral loss or delay. The penalties are generally too strong in tcp fo
- Forwarded message from William Salt -
From: William Salt
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:32 +0100
To: supp...@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2 (+3)
Reply-To: supp...@pfsense.com
Hi all, thanks for the input.
We have now swapped the cards
> >
> >
> > Well, then you run into the nice problem of the RNCs only having 400
> kilobytes of buffers per session and will drop packets if they receive
> more
> packets than that, or sometimes even just because they receive a burst
> of a
> few tens of packets at GigE linerate (because the custom
On Jun 28, 2011 10:22 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> My point was that if end-hosts had Hybla or something similar, these
proxies can be removed providing a better end-to-end solution.
>
>
> Well, then you run into the nice problem of the RNCs on
On Jun 29, 2011 6:00 AM, "Ryan Malayter" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
> > have transparent TCP proxies in place.
>
> Do you have a reference for that information? Neither AT&T nor Sprint
N
On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:59 49AM, Ryan Malayter wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
>> have transparent TCP proxies in place.
>
> Do you have a reference for that information? Neither AT&T nor Spri
On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
> have transparent TCP proxies in place.
Do you have a reference for that information? Neither AT&T nor Sprint
seem to have transparent *HTTP* proxies according to
http://www.lag
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Tony Finch wrote:
Excessively large buffers are a problem because they break TCP's RTT
measurement. Also TCP cannot measure the available bandwidth without
packet loss.
Well, actually it can. ECN.
And regarding RTT measurement, since mobile network vary delay a lot,
tha
On 29/06/2011 12:18, Tony Finch wrote:
> Also TCP cannot measure the available bandwidth without packet loss.
?
TCP stacks will figure out available bandwidth just fine by measuring
return acks - there's no need to drop any packets.
Nick
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Well, then you run into the nice problem of the RNCs only having 400 kilobytes
> of buffers per session and will drop packets if they receive more packets than
> that, or sometimes even just because they receive a burst of a few tens of
> packets at GigE linerate (bec
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, PC wrote:
As for VSAT, most every vsat equipment manufacturer has TCP
acceleration/proxy support built into the satellite modem. They basically
forge acks at the hub site to buffer data from the server, then deliver it
it to the remote end in a continuous flow. Many also h
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Cameron Byrne wrote:
My point was that if end-hosts had Hybla or something similar, these
proxies can be removed providing a better end-to-end solution.
Well, then you run into the nice problem of the RNCs only having 400
kilobytes of buffers per session and will drop pac
om: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: 28 June 2011 16:53
>> >> To: Leigh Porter
>> >> Cc: Andreas Ott; Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com; NANOG list
>> >> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
>>
Ott; Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com; NANOG list
> >> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
> >> (+3)
> >> In the 3G world, i have had good results overcoming longish RTT by
> >> using the Hybla TCP algorithm http://hybla
ist
>> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
>> (+3)
>> In the 3G world, i have had good results overcoming longish RTT by
>> using the Hybla TCP algorithm http://hybla.deis.unibo.it/
>>
>> I am hoping it gets more default traction
> -Original Message-
> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 June 2011 16:53
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: Andreas Ott; Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com; NANOG list
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
> (
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Leigh Porter
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andreas Ott [mailto:andr...@naund.org]
>> Sent: 28 June 2011 16:27
>> To: Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: [pfSens
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Ott [mailto:andr...@naund.org]
> Sent: 28 June 2011 16:27
> To: Eugen Leitl; williamejs...@googlemail.com
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
> (+3)
>
> -andreas
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> - Forwarded message from William Salt -
> From: William Salt
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
> To: supp...@pfsense.com
> Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2 (+3)
&
max out LFNs.
On 06/28/2011 03:52 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> - Forwarded message from William Salt -
>
> From: William Salt
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
> To: supp...@pfsense.com
> Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2 (+3
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> For the last couple of months i have been pulling my hair out trying
> to solve this problem.
Sounds like TCP RTT and/or packet-loss - should be easy to determine the issue
with a bit of traffic capture.
---
: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:52:55
To: NANOG list
Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2 (+3)
- Forwarded message from William Salt -
From: William Salt
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
To: supp...@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Even disabling window scaling and setting the window to 16MB makes no
difference.
If you disable window scaling, you're limiting it to 64k.
However, we have tried different hardware (L3 switches, media convertes +
laptops etc), and the symptoms still p
Jérôme Nicolle [mailto:jer...@ceriz.fr]
> Sent: 28 June 2011 11:26
> To: Eugen Leitl
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2
> (+3)
>
> This is a well known issues called "Long Fat Pipe Network".
>
> There's
is forum post :
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/116165
Good luck !
2011/6/28 Eugen Leitl :
> - Forwarded message from William Salt -
>
> From: William Salt
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
> To: supp...@pfsense.com
> Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP conne
- Forwarded message from William Salt -
From: William Salt
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
To: supp...@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP connection behavior 2.0 RC2 (+3)
Reply-To: supp...@pfsense.com
Hi All,
For the last couple of months i have been
27 matches
Mail list logo
