- Forwarded message from William Salt williamejs...@googlemail.com -
From: William Salt williamejs...@googlemail.com
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,
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Nick Feamster wrote:
We've launched Project BISMark, a project that performs active
performance measurements of upload and download throughput, latency,
etc. from OpenWRT-based routers running inside of homes. We have tested
our OpenWRT image on the NetGear WNDR 3700v2
This is a well known issues called Long Fat Pipe Network.
There's many university papers about it and many tricks to get around
it on software-based boxes.
Adjusting your TCP window size was the best start, if it's set
properlu. The basic formula is provided in this forum post :
Indeed, we had similar issues on a 3G radio network. Long RTTs made it
impossible to reach the maximum potential throughput of the network. I
installed one of these:
http://www.fastsoft.com/home/
And the problem just went away.
--
Leigh Porter
-Original Message-
From: Jérôme
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Nick Feamster feams...@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
Hello NANOG,
We've launched Project BISMark, a project that performs active performance
measurements of upload and download throughput, latency, etc. from
OpenWRT-based routers running inside of homes.
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
Since UDP works I have my doubts it is a driver/interface link issue.
This sounds more like a latency/packet loss issue (esp since it is a
transatlantic link).
What type of latency, packet loss, and or packet error rates are you seeing?
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl
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.
Obviously not helping if you are trying to tune standard TCP, but I
lament that protocols like Tsunami are not in wider use.
http://tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/ Short of it, a TCP control channel
takes care of error checking and resends while the data channel is a UDP
stream, specifically built to
Thanks for the feedback!
On Jun 28, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Nick Feamster wrote:
We've launched Project BISMark, a project that performs active performance
measurements of upload and download throughput, latency, etc. from
OpenWRT-based routers
Hi Alex,
On Jun 28, 2011, at 6:30 AM, Alex Brooks wrote:
Is this similar to the UK (Ofcom, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/) and US
(FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/) regulators scheme that is being run by Sam
Knows at http://www.samknows.com/broadband/test_my_isp and
BRITE is a web-based test and evaluation framework for exercising
implementations, configurations and deployments of emerging IETF BGP
security technologies, including some components of the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and routers that support BGP security extensions.
BRITE is
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
- Forwarded message from William Salt williamejs...@googlemail.com -
From: William Salt williamejs...@googlemail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:03:25 +0100
To: supp...@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP
-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
[who has to explain this about once a week
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Leigh Porter
leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com 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: [pfSense Support] Strange TCP
-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
(+3)
In the 3G world, i have
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Leigh Porter
leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote:
-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:
Hi.
I would like to participate in the Bismark project, for now only as a
poller-kind user.
While checking the router n600 specifications datasheet it seems that this
device is IPv6 compliant in some degree (because of the IPv6 Ready Logo
included at the bottom of the sheet).
I'm really
I did this by creating a 6to4 tunnel to a relay provided by
6in4, not 6to4. While HE do operate 6to4 relays, the brokered tunnel
service is 6in4.
A very important distinction I didn't have clear in my head. To regurgitate
some reading I just completed: both methods use v6 in v4
I have found most/all modern 3g networks can achieve optimal download speed
within their latency limitations (200ms domestic end-to-end is normal for
most today) when combined with a modern operating system that does automatic
TCP receive window adjustments based on per-flow characteristics. I
DENOG 3 - Call for Participation and Papers
The third meeting of the German Network Operators Group (DENOG) will be
held in Frankfurt, Germany on the 20th of October 2011. We are pleased
to hereby invite applications for presentations or lightning talks to be
held at this event.
General
Thank you all
Two questions:
If I get the HE as upstream to advertsie our ipv6,
1/ Do we still have www.tunnelbroker.net as tunneling connection?
2/ All the internet users can access our ipv6 website?
Thank you
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Kenny Sallee kenny.sal...@gmail.com wrote:
In message BANLkTi=ckc96cxhup3j-gcna2ccxy8p...@mail.gmail.com, Deric Kwok writ
es:
Thank you all
Two questions:
If I get the HE as upstream to advertsie our ipv6,
1/ Do we still have www.tunnelbroker.net as tunneling connection?
2/ All the internet users can access our ipv6 website?
Derik,
1. Yes, you still use tunnelbroker.net if you wish you your own IPv6 PI
space tunneled. HE does require you to have an ASN as well. With this
you can multihome up to 5 of their PoPs.
Find more info at their site:
http://tunnelbroker.net/
However, they will give you up to 5 tunnels, each
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
