Masataka Ohta wrote on 03/09/2023 14:32:
See, for example, the famous paper of "Sizing Router Buffers".
With thousands of TCP connections at the backbone recognized
by the paper, buffers with thousands of packets won't cause
packet reordering.
What you said reminds me of the old saying: in
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 2:42 PM David Hubbard
wrote:
> any new TCP flow is subject to numerous dropped packets at establishment and
> then ongoing loss every five to ten seconds.
Hi David,
That sounds like normal TCP behavior over a long fat pipe. After
establishment, TCP sends a burst of 10
On 9/3/23 15:01, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Why, do you think, you can rely on existence of flows?
You have not quite answered my question - but I will assume you are in
favour of per-packet load balancing.
I have deployed per-packet load balancing before, ironically, trying to
deal with
On 9/3/23 15:01, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Why, do you think, you can rely on existence of flows?
You have not quite answered my question - but I will assume you are in
favour of per-packet load balancing.
I have deployed per-packet load balancing before, ironically, trying to
deal with
Nick Hilliard wrote:
the proper thing to do is to use the links with round robin
fashion without hashing. Without buffer bloat, packet
reordering probability within each TCP connection is
negligible.
Can you provide some real world data to back this position up?
See, for example, the famous
Mark Tinka wrote:
So you mean, what... per-packet load balancing, in lieu of per-flow load
balancing?
Why, do you think, you can rely on existence of flows?
So, if you internally have 10 parallel 1G circuits expecting
perfect hashing over them, it is not "non-rate-limited 10gig".
It is
Masataka Ohta wrote on 03/09/2023 08:59:
the proper thing to do is to use the links with round robin
fashion without hashing. Without buffer bloat, packet
reordering probability within each TCP connection is
negligible.
Can you provide some real world data to back this position up?
What you
You didn't lose your /. account because of a mailing list config.You lost it due to the bad practices or knowledge at the time.\o/-- J. HellenthalThe fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.On Sep 2, 2023, at 17:08, Richard
On 9/3/23 09:59, Masataka Ohta wrote:
If you have multiple parallel links over which many slow
TCP connections are running, which should be your assumption,
the proper thing to do is to use the links with round robin
fashion without hashing. Without buffer bloat, packet
reordering
Mark Tinka wrote:
Wrong. It can be performed only at the edges by policing total
incoming traffic without detecting flows.
I am not talking about policing in the core, I am talking about
detection in the core.
I'm not talking about detection at all.
Policing at the edge is pretty
10 matches
Mail list logo
