Re: [TLS] [EXT] Re: Time to first byte vs time to last byte

2024-03-13 Thread Kampanakis, Panos
I think we are getting distracted from the point which is to consider the whole connection time when assessing handshake impact. Even an extra RTT due to initcwnd=10 becomes less and less significant when we are talking about 5+ RTTs to establish the conn and transfer >50KB of data. Interesting

Re: [TLS] [EXT] Re: Time to first byte vs time to last byte

2024-03-13 Thread Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
Please, let us not assume every website is behind a CDN. Isn't that assumption reasonable? At least for global websites --- without CDN performance sucks. Of course it isn’t. As a reference point: Consider reading the New York Times in Canberra, Well, if you have nothing better to d

Re: [TLS] [EXT] Re: Time to first byte vs time to last byte

2024-03-13 Thread Rob Sayre
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 3:29 PM Ben Smyth wrote: > > As a reference point: > > Consider reading the New York Times in Canberra, > > doesn't happen without CDN > > #SpeedOfLightSlow > I thought about it this way: who does the CDN connect to, and what happens if the traffic is personalized? thank

Re: [TLS] [EXT] Re: Time to first byte vs time to last byte

2024-03-13 Thread Ben Smyth
> Given that especially for the web, CDNs used much higher initcwnds, > > Please, let us not assume every website is behind a CDN. > > Isn't that assumption reasonable? At least for global websites --- without > CDN performance sucks. > > *Of course* it isn’t. > As a reference point: Consider rea

Re: [TLS] [EXT] Re: Time to first byte vs time to last byte

2024-03-13 Thread Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 10:23, Bas Westerbaan wrote: Given that especially for the web, CDNs used much higher initcwnds, Please, let us not assume every website is behind a CDN. Isn't that assumption reasonable? At least for global websites --- without CDN performance sucks. Of co