LC> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:04:20 -0800 LC> From: "Cottrell, Les" LC> The remarks about window size and buffer are interesting LC> also. It is true large windows are needed. To approach LC> 1Gbits/s we require 40MByte windows. If this is going to be LC> a problem, then we need to raise question like this soon and LC> figure out how to address (add more memory, use other LC> protocols etc.). In practice to approcah 2.5Gbits/s requires LC> 120MByte windows. Yup. About 2x to 2.5x the bandwidth*delay product. I'm still curious about insane SACK or maybe NACK. Spray TCP packets hoping they arrive (good odds), and wait to hear what made or didn't make it. Let the receiving end have the large buffers... sending machines generally must handle a greater number of sessions. ECN also would be a nice way of telling a sender to back off, [hopefully] proactively avoiding packet loss. It certainly seems a shame to require big sending buffers and slow down entire streams just in case a small bit gets lost. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.