On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:29:38 +0200 (CEST)
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
>
> > IvB> Obviously "some" packet loss and jitter are normal. But how much is
> > IvB> normal? Even at a few tenths of a percent packet loss hurts TCP
> > IvB>
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Tim Thorne wrote:
> After reading all the stories about what supposedly happened does
> anyone know what really happened? Did UUNet US really do an IOS
> upgrade on a sizable proportion of their border routers in one go?
> This seems like suicide to me. What possible reason co
>
>
>
>
> IIRC the maximum TCP(theoretical)session BW under these conditions
>Is less than 1Mb/sec (for 600msec RTT)
>
873.8kbps payload, add headers with assumed 1500 byte MTU and you'll
have 897.8kbps.
This assumes zero latency on the hosts reacting to the packets.
Pete
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> IvB> Obviously "some" packet loss and jitter are normal. But how much is
> IvB> normal? Even at a few tenths of a percent packet loss hurts TCP
> IvB> performance. The only way to keep jitter really low without dropping large
> IvB> numbers of packets i
## On 2002-10-04 23:50 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum typed:
IvB>
IvB> Obviously "some" packet loss and jitter are normal. But how much is
IvB> normal? Even at a few tenths of a percent packet loss hurts TCP
IvB> performance. The only way to keep jitter really low without dropping large
IvB> numbe
Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But cyberspace hasn't gone senile. Those massive e-mail delays, slow
>Internet connections and downed e-businesses were all caused by a software
>upgrade that went horribly wrong at WorldCom's UUNet division, a large
>provider network communications.
Aft
