From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 1 07:45:36 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10651 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 07:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id GAA20099 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA20091 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id GAA20367; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:36:04 -0400 Received: from albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se(194.237.142.116) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma020331; Tue, 1 Aug 00 06:35:45 -0400 Received: from eed.ericsson.se (mailhost.eed.ericsson.se [164.48.133.33]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.11.0/WIREfire-1.3) with ESMTP id e71AZgw07610; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:35:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: from E00D05905E94A.eed.ericsson.se (rmt160150.am.ericsson.se [138.85.160.150]) by eed.ericsson.se (8.8.8+Sun/1.1.mit) with ESMTP id MAA08898; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:35:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000801115412.00b847e0@chapelle.ericsson.se> X-Sender: eedrel@chapelle.ericsson.se X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:33:54 +0200 To: karn@qualcomm.com From: Reiner Ludwig Subject: Re: Comments to "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers" Cc: pilc@grc.nasa.gov In-Reply-To: <200007311454.HAA01073@patty.ka9q.ampr.org> References: < <5E5172B4DE05D311B3AB0008C75DA941019EF683@edeacnt100.eed.ericsson.se> <5E5172B4DE05D311B3AB0008C75DA941019EF683@edeacnt100.eed.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk At 07:54 31.07.00 -0700, Phil Karn wrote: >What you really want to avoid are the nasty interactions between TCP >and link/physical layer retransmissions that can occur in certain link >operating regions. People often talk about those interactions as if there where so many of those. What are those interactions you are talking about? I only know of two such interactions: (1) spurious timeouts that lead to a go-back-N retransmisison mode in TCP, and (2) out-of-order delivery at the link layer that falsely triggers fast retransmit / fast recovery. Of course, both are nasty. Given that PILC recommends that link layers should avoid out-of-order delivery (also for the sake of not causing trouble for TCP/IP header compression) this leaves spurious timeouts as the cardinal problem. Two notes about that: (1) There is a fix for that http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/ccr/archive/2000/jan00/ccr-200001-ludwig.html (2) Spurious timeouts are very rare because TCP's retransmission timer is overly conservative http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/ccr/archive/2000/july00/ccr_200007-ludwig.html >Consider a physical layer with a long latency and >link layer ARQ. Most packets go through without link level ARQ, so >most of the time the RTT is consistent and TCP shrinks its RTO to just >above the RTT. At least for BSD-derived TCP implementations this is not the case. The minimum difference between the RTO and the RTT is about one RTT but most of the times the RTO is even much higher. See the paper referenced above. >But whenever the link layer retransmits, the RTT spikes >and there's a spurious TCP retransmission. This is a simply not true. You have to let things go really bad to force a spurious timeout in TCP. Depending on your path characteristics especially those of the wireless link, TCP can even "survive" link outages on the order of seconds without a spurious timeout. Apart from the two papers referenced above, here are a few more papers that confirm that: 1. P. Bhagwat, P. Bhattacharya, A. Krishna, S. K. Tripathi, Using channel state dependent packet scheduling to improve TCP throughput over wireless LANs, ACM/Baltzer Wireless Networks Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1997. 2. D. A. Eckhardt, P. Steenkiste, Improving Wireless LAN Performance via Adap-tive Local Error Control, In Proceedings of IEEE ICNP 98. 3. R. Ludwig, B. Rathonyi, A. Konrad, K. Oden, A. Joseph, Multi-Layer Tracing of TCP over a Reliable Wireless Link, pp. 144-154, In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS 99. 4. M. Meyer, TCP Performance over GPRS, In Proceedings of IEEE WCNC 99. You and I had these discussions before on this list and I don't know why you keep repeating these fairy tales. >If link level retransmissions are rare, then spurious TCP >retransmissions are also rare and their effect on performance is >minimal. If link level retransmissions are very frequent, TCP sees a >high RTT variance and sets an RTO that is well above the average >value. Again, spurious TCP retransmissions are rare. But things can >degrade badly in the intermediate region, say, every 10th packet. Just >when TCP has dropped its RTO to just above the average RTT, another >link level retransmission occurs and causes TCP to spuriously >retransmit. Again, this is not true. I would like to see some measurements that support your claims. ///Reiner From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 1 11:10:17 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05139 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id JAA17158 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA17096 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id JAA11219; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:54:23 -0400 Received: from hns3.hns.com(208.236.67.3) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma011138; Tue, 1 Aug 00 09:53:58 -0400 Received: from hnssysa.hns.com (hnssysa.hns.com [139.85.76.100]) by hns3.hns.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29324; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hns.com (expdialin22.hns.com [139.85.222.52]) by hnssysa.hns.com (8.9.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16507; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3986D642.2073892C@hns.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 09:53:06 -0400 From: borderlt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: inamura@mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp, taro@mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp CC: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Re draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt... Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------D1F2AC8A153DBDD3F9F8C9EE" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D1F2AC8A153DBDD3F9F8C9EE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------D1F2AC8A153DBDD3F9F8C9EE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="docomo.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="docomo.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A few comments re draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt... In Section 2.2, is 336b/16b bits or bytes? It is difficult to tell. (I am assuming bits.) Be more explicit. Figures 1 and 2 indicate that the TCP connections (and the HTTP "sessions") are terminated at the Gateway. Is this done in a transparent fashion or in a more explicit proxy fashion where the handset intentionally directs its connections to the Gateway? John Border Hughes Network Systems --------------D1F2AC8A153DBDD3F9F8C9EE-- From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 1 19:42:58 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07880 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA10235 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA10207 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA23061; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:37:51 -0400 Received: from mail0.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp(202.245.184.18) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma022993; Tue, 1 Aug 00 18:36:55 -0400 Received: from mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp (mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp [172.21.48.50]) by mail0.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp (8.9.0/YRPHUB0-8819980304) with ESMTP id HAA08729; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:36:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from c1inamura ([172.21.1.84]) by mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp (8.9.2/3.7W-mml-990617) with SMTP id HAA10766; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:36:48 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <007401bffc09$6b981f20$3a4e510a@yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp> From: "Hiroshi INAMURA" To: "borderlt" , Cc: References: <3986D642.2073892C@hns.com> Subject: Re: Re draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt... Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:35:01 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > In Section 2.2, is 336b/16b bits or bytes? It is difficult to tell. > (I am assuming bits.) Be more explicit. It is "bits". Sorry for confusion. > Figures 1 and 2 indicate that the TCP connections (and the HTTP "sessions") > are terminated at the Gateway. Is this done in a transparent fashion or in > a more explicit proxy fashion where the handset intentionally directs its > connections to the Gateway? Explicit proxy fashion. Hiroshi Inamura Multimedia Labs, NTT DoCoMo From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 3 03:44:49 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01948 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id CAA07251 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA07247 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id CAA15587; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:23:26 -0400 Received: from atoll.cs.jcu.edu.au(137.219.47.12) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma015547; Thu, 3 Aug 00 02:22:51 -0400 Received: from cs.jcu.edu.au (tg1b73.cs.jcu.edu.au [137.219.47.73]) by atoll.cs.jcu.edu.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05532 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:22:45 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <39890E6D.D340533B@cs.jcu.edu.au> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:17:17 +1000 From: Huan Ngoc Pham Organization: James Cook University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: QoS support over different links Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, o I learn from IETF PILC site that this document has been done but it's not available online: Draft of link-layer design considerations document. Could anyone provide me that copy please. o If QoS support over different types of links is considered in this working group? Thanks _________________________________________________________________ Huan Ngoc PHAM Postgraduate Research Student School of Information Technology Tel: +61 7 4781 6909 James Cook University Mob: +61 4 1887 5084 Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia E-mail: huan@cs.jcu.edu.au _________________________________________________________________ From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 3 20:28:47 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12340 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id TAA13758 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA13701 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id TAA11310; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:08:36 -0400 Received: from unknown(208.217.183.161) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma011200; Thu, 3 Aug 00 19:08:02 -0400 Received: by atlconn1.panamsat.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:19:24 -0400 Message-ID: <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696020FCEC4@grnexch1.panamsat.com> From: "Falk, Aaron" To: "'Huan Ngoc Pham'" Cc: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: RE: QoS support over different links Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:13:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk > o I learn from IETF PILC site that this document has been done but > it's not available online: > Draft of link-layer design considerations > document. > Could anyone provide me that copy please. This working document is available through the page you are referencing at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-03.txt > > o If QoS support over different types of links is > considered in this > working group? Yes. --aaron From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 10 10:17:01 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24123 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id JAA28370 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA28330 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:03:50 -0400 (EDT) From: fred@cisco.com Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id JAA07119; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:03:47 -0400 Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com(171.69.43.88) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma006740; Thu, 10 Aug 00 09:03:22 -0400 Received: from irp-view7.cisco.com (irp-view7.cisco.com [171.69.25.24]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA02107; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (fred@localhost) by irp-view7.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/CISCO.WS.1.2) id GAA00579; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200008101303.GAA00579@irp-view7.cisco.com> To: inamura@mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp, pilc@grc.nasa.gov, taro@mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp Subject: draft-inamura-docomo-00.txt Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk I notice that you recently posted a new internet draft. A document that might be worth reading is http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html This document was put together by members of the IESG to help the community know what are the most common problems that we see in documents, whether from working groups or individual submissions, and pro-actively avoid them. This is an automatic email; please don't conclude that I have discovered something awful about your draft, as I haven't even read it yet. Rather, I'm just letting you know that there is a list of common issues that get raised over and over again in IESG reviews, and I'd like to save you the hassle by letting you see for yourself whether any of them apply. Let me know if you have any questions I can answer. From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 14 08:07:50 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04580 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id GAA27451 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA27445; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: tkwriter@vanc.igs.net Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id GAA22738; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:29:09 -0400 Received: from buddy.pacificcoast.net(216.86.100.2) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma022714; Mon, 14 Aug 00 06:29:08 -0400 Received: from pacificcoast.net (bct140-107.gen.pacificcoast.net [209.53.140.107]) by buddy.pacificcoast.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA01207; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:54:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:54:45 -0700 Message-Id: <200008140854.BAA01207@buddy.pacificcoast.net> Reply-To: tkwriter@vanc.igs.net To: tkwriter@vanc.igs.net Subject: Documentation Specialist Seeking Contract Work Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Documentation Specialists Seeking Contract Work - Technical Writing, graphics, Robohelp, HTML, SGML, etc. Senior technical writers, project leaders and electronic documentation specialists seek contract work. Clients have included companies such as Microsoft and Koch Petroleum. Excellent communication skills, able to work with all levels of the company from programmers to CEO. Excellent background in technical, marketing and creative writing. Familiar with educational material as well as e-commerce. Writing samples, full resume and references available on request. Experience in creating both published and online documentation. REQUIRED: Prefer Corp to Corp Sole relationship directly with the client. Agents are also welcome in the same capacity. Production is done at our facility. We are fully equipped. PLEASE REPLY ONLY BY PHONE Contact - Casey Lea - TO INQUIRE ABOUT SERVICES, AVAILABILITY, OR TO CONFIRM REMOVAL FROM OUR LIST CALL 604-685-8348 PST Rates: Fees are charged by the hour or by the project. ------------------- This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html___________________________________________________________ This Message was Composed by a user of Extractor Pro '98 Bulk E- Mail Software. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 14 11:52:28 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12874 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id KAA26147 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA26102 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id KAA08477; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:29:56 -0400 Received: from unknown(208.217.183.161) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma007859; Mon, 14 Aug 00 10:29:16 -0400 Received: by atlconn1.panamsat.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:29:15 -0400 Message-ID: <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696020FCF73@grnexch1.panamsat.com> From: "Falk, Aaron" To: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Cc: "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: WG last call for ERROR Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:23:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk The document "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors" is ready for working group last call. Please send comments to the PILC mail list. A current version of the draft can be obtained from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-error-04.txt From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 14 11:55:09 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12938 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id KAA29076 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA29014 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id KAA21996; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:46:03 -0400 Received: from fortress.fnc.fujitsu.com(204.253.82.1) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma021402; Mon, 14 Aug 00 10:45:22 -0400 Received: from fnc01.fnc.fujitsu.com (fnc01.fnc.fujitsu.com [167.254.100.17]) by fortress.fnc.fujitsu.com (8.8.7/FNC/ITG-2.0.1) with ESMTP id JAA06619 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:45:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by fnc01.fnc.fujitsu.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:45:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Dawkins, Spencer" To: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: RE: WG last call for ERROR Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:44:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk And, just to make sure we have comments during WG last call, here are a couple: Section 2.1, second bullet - I got a comment at the PILC WG meeting in Pittsburgh that PMTU discovery needed to be mentioned here. Suggested new text might be Was: - During slow start, the sender increases its window in units of segments. This is why it is important to use an appropriately sized MTU - and less reliable link layers often use smaller MTUs. Suggested: - Less-reliable link layers often use smaller MTUs. This slows the rate of increase in the sender's window size during slow start, because the sender's window is increased in units of segments. Path MTU discovery allows the most rapid opening of the sender's window size during slow start, but a number of round trips may still be required to open the window completely. Does this seem correct/helpful? (editorial) Section 2.2, second paragraph, first line has an extra "when" at the end of the line - needs to be removed. Spencer > -----Original Message----- > From: Falk, Aaron [SMTP:aaron@panamsat.com] > > The document "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors" is > ready for working group last call. Please send comments to the PILC mail > list. > > A current version of the draft can be obtained from > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-error-04.txt > From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 15 17:52:08 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28227 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id QAA08688 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA08654 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id QAA19385; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:22:06 -0400 Received: from ftpbox.mot.com(129.188.136.101) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma018992; Tue, 15 Aug 00 16:21:41 -0400 Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id NAA17076; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:21:40 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from noah.dma.isg.mot.com (noah.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.2.29]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id NAA15971; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:21:39 -0700 (MST)] Received: from dma.isg.mot.com (nrlab-08.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.50.46]) by noah.dma.isg.mot.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29624; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008152021.QAA29624@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 To: "Falk, Aaron" cc: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:23:11 EDT." <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696020FCF73@grnexch1.panamsat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:21:37 -0400 From: Dan Grossman Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk I have a few nits about the introductory text: It has been axiomatic that most losses on the Internet are due to congestion, as routers run out of buffers and discard incoming traffic. This observation is the basis for current TCP congestion avoidance strategies - if losses are due to congestion, there is no need for an explicit "congestion encountered" notification to the sender. This is revisionist history. In the early days of the ARPANET, there were significant numbers of losses which resulted from errors in the voice-grade and group band leased circuits and modems that made up the backbone. At the time that IP was invented, the need for congestion control was poorly understood, and congestion control was retrofitted in what was beleived to be the least disruptive fashion, i.e., by overloading the semantics of a dropped packet. By then, the T1 backbone was running, and access was largely over DDS. Quoting Van Jacobson in 1988: "If packet loss is (almost) always due to congestion and if a timeout is (almost) always due to a lost packet, we have a good candidate for the `network is congested' signal." [VJ-DCAC] With due respect, Van is a prominent and knowledgeable contributor to the work of the IETF, not the fitting object of a cult of personality. I should hope that he would find this sort of thing more than a bit embarrassing. This axiom has served the Internet community well, because it allowed the deployment of TCPs that have allowed the Internet to accomodate explosive growth in link speeds and traffic levels. No, this represents a design decision which more-or-less worked, from among a number of other possible design decisions which might have worked as well or better. Suggested replacement text for the first 4 paragraphs: ----------------- Congestion control in the Internet is based on an assumption that most packet losses are due to congestion. TCP participates in a congestion avoidance strategy which treats a lost packet as a congestion signal. This has worked well since it was introduced in 1988 [VJ-DAC], because most links and subnets have relatively low error rates in normal operation. However, links and subnets that do not enjoy low uncorrected error rates are becoming more prevalent in parts of the Internet. These particularly include terrestrial and satellite wireless links. Users served by these kinds of links may see poor performance because their TCP connections are spending excessive time in congestion avoidance and/or slow start procedures triggered by transmission errors. ---------------- Add toward the bottom of section 1: ---------------- This memo is based on the explicit assumption that major changes to the entire installed base of routers and hosts are not a practical possibility. This constrains any changes to routers and hosts that are directly affected by errored links. ----------------- Page 8: congestion has to take precedence over quickly repairing transmission error. This means that the best that can be ^ s. achieved without new feedback mechanisms is minimizing the Appendix C: Memory fails me: did the Transport Area WG decide to move ABC to "Proposed" or to "Experimental"? Dan From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 15 17:54:42 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28276 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id QAA13179 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA13147 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id QAA11458; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:52:59 -0400 Received: from ftpbox.mot.com(129.188.136.101) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma011359; Tue, 15 Aug 00 16:52:56 -0400 Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id NAA09445; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:52:54 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from noah.dma.isg.mot.com (noah.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.2.29]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id NAA09299; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:52:53 -0700 (MST)] Received: from dma.isg.mot.com (nrlab-08.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.50.46]) by noah.dma.isg.mot.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA17304; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008152052.QAA17304@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 cc: "Falk, Aaron" , "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:21:37 EDT." <200008152021.QAA29624@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:52:51 -0400 From: Dan Grossman Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Correction: > This is revisionist history. In the early days of the ARPANET, there were > significant numbers of losses which resulted from errors in the voice-grade > and group band leased circuits and modems that made up the backbone. At the > time that IP was invented, the need for congestion control was poorly understood. After the ARPANET congestion collapses of the mid-1980s, congestion control was retrofitted in what was believed to be > the least disruptive fashion, i.e., by overloading the semantics of a dropped > packet. By then, the T1 backbone was running, and access was largely over > DDS. From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 15 19:25:24 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00129 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA21445 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA21428 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA14547; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:22:46 -0400 Received: from ftpbox.mot.com(129.188.136.101) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma014510; Tue, 15 Aug 00 18:22:27 -0400 Received: [from pobox3.mot.com (pobox3.mot.com [10.64.251.242]) by ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id PAA08896; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:22:24 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from noah.dma.isg.mot.com (noah.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.2.29]) by pobox3.mot.com (MOT-pobox3 2.0) with ESMTP id PAA29671; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:21:38 -0700 (MST)] Received: from dma.isg.mot.com (nrlab-08.dma.isg.mot.com [150.21.50.46]) by noah.dma.isg.mot.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA10393; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008152222.SAA10393@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 cc: "Falk, Aaron" , "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:52:51 EDT." <200008152052.QAA17304@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:22:17 -0400 From: Dan Grossman Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk It has been pointed out to me that the following could be misread as a personal attack: > With due respect, Van is a prominent and knowledgeable contributor to the work > of the IETF, not the fitting object of a cult of personality. I should hope > that he would find this sort of thing more than a bit embarrassing. If others have read it this way, I apologise. No offense was intended. Rather, I wished to point out that this is a case of an I-D getting carried away in reverence for an individual who has made a significant contribution to the community. Readers from outside the community (for whom this draft is in part intended) would find this construction to be at least odd. Nor is it necessary to the purpose of the document. Dan From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 15 20:01:41 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00824 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id TAA23781 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA23757 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id TAA21169; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:00:17 -0400 Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk(131.227.76.5) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma021144; Tue, 15 Aug 00 19:00:09 -0400 Received: from petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.88.13] ident=eep1lw) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13Opgl-00030y-00 for pilc@grc.nasa.gov; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:07 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:04 +0100 (BST) From: Lloyd Wood X-Sender: eep1lw@petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk Reply-To: L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk To: PILC mailing list Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR Message-ID: Organization: speaking for none X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/ X-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Dan Grossman wrote: > It has been pointed out to me that the following could be misread as a > personal attack: > > > With due respect, Van is a prominent and knowledgeable contributor to the work > > of the IETF, not the fitting object of a cult of personality. ...not with _those_ sandals and _that_ haircut. > > I should hope > > that he would find this sort of thing more than a bit embarrassing. ...not with _those_ sandals and _that_ haircut. L. I'm just posting this to try and answer this question: WWVJD? PGP From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed Aug 16 03:27:15 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19705 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id CAA13486 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA13452 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id CAA02071; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:36 -0400 Received: from out4.prserv.net(32.97.166.34) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma002018; Wed, 16 Aug 00 02:04:41 -0400 Received: from attglobal.net ([32.100.71.69]) by prserv.net (out4) with SMTP id <2000081606043523901ab887e>; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 06:04:36 +0000 Message-ID: <399A2E40.E7CBE822@attglobal.net> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:01:36 -0700 From: Alex Cannara Reply-To: cannara@attglobal.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Grossman CC: "Falk, Aaron" , "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR References: <200008152021.QAA29624@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very good Dan. Agree 100%. Alex Dan Grossman wrote: > > I have a few nits about the introductory text: > > It has been axiomatic that most losses on the Internet are due to > congestion, as routers run out of buffers and discard incoming > traffic. This observation is the basis for current TCP > congestion avoidance strategies - if losses are due to congestion, > there is no need for an explicit "congestion encountered" > notification to the sender. > This is revisionist history. In the early days of the ARPANET, there were > significant numbers of losses which resulted from errors in the voice-grade > and group band leased circuits and modems that made up the backbone. At the > time that IP was invented, the need for congestion control was poorly > understood, and congestion control was retrofitted in what was beleived to be > the least disruptive fashion, i.e., by overloading the semantics of a dropped > packet. By then, the T1 backbone was running, and access was largely over > DDS. > > Quoting Van Jacobson in 1988: "If packet loss is (almost) always > due to congestion and if a timeout is (almost) always due to a > lost packet, we have a good candidate for the `network is congested' > signal." [VJ-DCAC] > With due respect, Van is a prominent and knowledgeable contributor to the work > of the IETF, not the fitting object of a cult of personality. I should hope > that he would find this sort of thing more than a bit embarrassing. > > This axiom has served the Internet community well, because it > allowed the deployment of TCPs that have allowed the Internet to > accomodate explosive growth in link speeds and traffic levels. > No, this represents a design decision which more-or-less worked, from among a > number of other possible design decisions which might have worked as well or > better. > > Suggested replacement text for the first 4 paragraphs: > ----------------- > Congestion control in the Internet is based on an assumption that most packet losses are due to congestion. TCP participates in a congestion avoidance strategy which treats a lost packet as a congestion signal. This has worked well since it was introduced in 1988 [VJ-DAC], because most links and subnets have relatively low error rates in normal operation. However, links and subnets that do not enjoy low uncorrected error rates are becoming more prevalent in parts of the Internet. These particularly include terrestrial and satellite wireless links. Users served by these kinds of links may see poor performance because their TCP connections are spending excessive time in congestion avoidance and/or slow start procedures triggered by transmission errors. > ---------------- > > Add toward the bottom of section 1: > ---------------- > This memo is based on the explicit assumption that major changes to the entire installed base of routers and hosts are not a practical possibility. This constrains any changes to routers and hosts that are directly affected by errored links. > ----------------- > > Page 8: > congestion has to take precedence over quickly repairing > transmission error. This means that the best that can be > ^ > s. > achieved without new feedback mechanisms is minimizing the > > Appendix C: > Memory fails me: did the Transport Area WG decide to move ABC to "Proposed" or to "Experimental"? > > Dan From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Wed Aug 16 14:30:11 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01653 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id NAA19411 for pilc-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA19384 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id NAA16457; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:06:05 -0400 Received: from c017-h015.c017.sfo.cp.net(209.228.12.229) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma016310; Wed, 16 Aug 00 13:05:53 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14191 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 10:05:51 -0700 Received: from dns.packetdesign.net (HELO mailman.packetdesign.com) (216.15.46.10) by smtp.packetdesign.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 10:05:51 -0700 X-Sent: 16 Aug 2000 17:05:51 GMT Received: from packetdesign.com ([192.168.0.13]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA90386; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:05:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nichols@packetdesign.com) Message-ID: <399ACBA1.B15E66D0@packetdesign.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:13:05 -0700 From: Kathleen Nichols X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk CC: PILC mailing list Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As wonderful as I think Van is, I don't think he has enough "personality" to fuel a cult. Lloyd Wood wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Dan Grossman wrote: > > > It has been pointed out to me that the following could be misread as a > > personal attack: > > > > > With due respect, Van is a prominent and knowledgeable contributor to the work > > > of the IETF, not the fitting object of a cult of personality. > > ...not with _those_ sandals and _that_ haircut. > > > > I should hope > > > that he would find this sort of thing more than a bit embarrassing. > > ...not with _those_ sandals and _that_ haircut. > > L. > > I'm just posting this to try and answer this question: WWVJD? > > PGP From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 17 14:01:09 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01548 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id MAA25103 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA25036; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:49:20 -0400 (EDT) From: announce@leisurewebcams.com Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id MAA14751; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:49:17 -0400 Message-Id: <200008171649.MAA14751@seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov> Received: from m319-mp1-cvx1a.man.ntl.com(62.252.197.63) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma014161; Thu, 17 Aug 00 12:48:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:12:50 Subject: LeisureWebcams.com - See the World Apparently-To: Apparently-To: Apparently-To: Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk LeisureWebcams.com is a recently launched website specialising in providing free LIVE access to over 1,500 webcams and 2,000 Tourist Offices world wide. Check it out:- http://www.leisurewebcams.com/ This offers you the chance to check out live and frequently updated images of your chosen location through the webcams and get detailed local knowledge through the Tourist Offices. Along with booking holidays direct through our travel partner, there is the opportunity to sell your unwanted clothes and equipment through our free Swap Shop. There is a lot to see, so if you have enjoyed your trip through our site, do tell your friends and let us know through 'Your Views'. If you have any suggestions for the site, or queries, please feel free to contact me at cy@LeisureWebcams.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Charlie Yates MARKETING DIRECTOR LeisureWebcams.com From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 21 16:39:56 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08991 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id PAA07153 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apataki-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (apataki-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06871; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from katrinaljoy (ras136.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.123.136]) by apataki-fi.lerc.nasa.gov with SMTP (NASA LeRC 8.7.4.1/2.01-local) id PAA29452; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000821150409.009dd930@popserve.lerc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: caivanc@popserve.lerc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:09:51 -0400 To: Dan Grossman From: William D Ivancic Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR Cc: "Falk, Aaron" , "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" In-Reply-To: <200008152021.QAA29624@noah.dma.isg.mot.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1435989==_.ALT" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk --=====================_1435989==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I suggest it may be good to time-stamp a section of the revision so that if or perhaps when wireless channels become less loss due to errors the reader will understand that was not always the case and therefore have an appreciation for the design decisions made at that time. At 04:21 PM 8/15/00 -0400, Dan Grossman wrote: >I have a few nits about the introductory text: ........ >Congestion control in the Internet is based on an assumption that most >packet losses are due to congestion. TCP participates in a congestion >avoidance strategy which treats a lost packet as a congestion signal. This >has worked well since it was introduced in 1988 [VJ-DAC], because most links >and subnets have relatively low error rates in normal operation. However, as of 2000, >links and subnets that do not enjoy low uncorrected error rates are becoming >more prevalent in parts of the Internet. These particularly include >terrestrial and satellite wireless links. Users served by these kinds of >links may see poor performance because their TCP connections are spending >excessive time in congestion avoidance and/or slow start procedures >triggered by transmission errors. ********************************************* William D. Ivancic NASA Glenn Research Center 21000 Brookpark Rd. MS 54-8 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 USA Phone: 1 216 433 3494 FAX: 1 216 433 8705 Email: William.D.Ivancic@grc.nasa.gov wivancic@grc.nasa.gov http://ctd.grc.nasa.gov/5610/5610.html ********************************************* --=====================_1435989==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I suggest it may be good to time-stamp a section of the revision so that if or perhaps when wireless channels become less loss due to errors the reader will understand that was not always the case and therefore have an appreciation for the design decisions made at that time.


At 04:21 PM 8/15/00 -0400, Dan Grossman wrote:
>I have a few nits about the introductory text:
........
>Congestion control in the Internet is based on an assumption that most
>packet losses are due to congestion.  TCP participates in a congestion
>avoidance strategy which treats a lost packet as a congestion signal.  This
>has worked well since it was introduced in 1988 [VJ-DAC], because most links
>and subnets have relatively low error rates in normal operation.   However,

as of 2000,


>links and subnets that do not enjoy low uncorrected error rates are becoming
>more prevalent in parts of the Internet.  These particularly include
>terrestrial and satellite wireless links.  Users served by these kinds of
>links may see poor performance because their TCP connections are spending
>excessive time in congestion avoidance and/or slow start procedures
>triggered by transmission errors.

*********************************************
William D. Ivancic
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.   MS 54-8
Cleveland, Ohio  44135
USA
Phone:   1 216 433 3494
FAX:     1 216 433 8705
Email:   William.D.Ivancic@grc.nasa.gov
             wivancic@grc.nasa.gov      
********************************************* --=====================_1435989==_.ALT-- From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Tue Aug 22 15:26:32 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13979 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id OAA11612 for pilc-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA11559 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id OAA24230; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:14:50 -0400 Received: from mailhost.iprg.nokia.com(205.226.5.12) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma023466; Tue, 22 Aug 00 14:14:00 -0400 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (darkstar.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.69]) by mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3-GLGS) with ESMTP id LAA02141 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id e7MIDsG12388 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:54 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:54 -0700 Nokia Silicon Valley Email Exploit Scanner Received: from pobox.iprg.nokia.com (205.226.5.79) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com(WTS.12.69) smtpdgVFtTy; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:51 PDT Received: from localhost (auggiral@localhost) by pobox.iprg.nokia.com (8.8.8/8.6.10) with SMTP id LAA08656 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ajay Uggirala To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov Subject: Performance Measurement Tools Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Hi I am looking for tools to measure the peformance of the routers (particularly the security features). So it would very helpful if anyone can refer to me some tools or direct me to sites where a comparision of the available tools has been made. Thanks in Advance Ajay Uggirala From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 24 13:44:03 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21251 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id MAA12861 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:17:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA12851 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id LAA10728; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:29:37 -0400 Received: from chappe.cnes.fr(132.149.22.2) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma009961; Thu, 24 Aug 00 05:15:01 -0400 Received: from pasteur.cnes.fr (pasteur.cnes.fr [132.149.22.8]) by chappe.cnes.fr (8.9.1a/1a/981005) with ESMTP id LAA13747 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:14:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailhub.cnes.fr (unverified) by pasteur.cnes.fr (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:15:25 +0200 Received: from gerbault.cst.cnes.fr by mailhub.cnes.fr with ESMTP for pilc@grc.nasa.gov; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:14:49 +0200 Received: by gerbault.cst.cnes.fr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <35N0JF09>; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:14:48 +0200 Message-Id: From: Donny Christophe To: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: PEP implementation Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:16:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id MAA12852 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I'm looking for the possibility of implementing PEP under a linux system. Does anyone know if such work has already be done? Any information about PEP implementation would be helpful. thanks, > Christophe DONNY > CNES - Radiocommunications division > Tél : (33) 05 61 27 33 27 - Fax : (33) 05 61 28 23 99 > christophe.donny@cnes.fr > From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Mon Aug 28 19:24:14 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22045 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id PAA27550 for pilc-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from guns (guns.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.87.35]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26757; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008281953.PAA26757@lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov> To: Dan Grossman From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@grc.nasa.gov cc: "Falk, Aaron" , "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: Re: WG last call for ERROR Organization: Late Night Hackers, NASA Glenn, Cleveland, Ohio Song-of-the-Day: It's Good to Be King Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:53:04 -0400 Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk > Appendix C: > Memory fails me: did the Transport Area WG decide to move ABC to > "Proposed" or to "Experimental"? ABC with a limit of increasing cwnd by no more than 1*SMSS bytes had good consensus, I believe. Using a more aggressive limit of 2*SMSS bytes did not have much traction. I'll be getting an appropriate I-D out on the former Very Soon. (Of course, the above is based on the sense of the room at the meeting. Real consensus will (or won't) materialize on the tsvwg mailing list after I get the document revised.) allman --- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/ From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 31 13:26:11 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10030 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id MAA22600 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA22568 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id MAA22040; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:05:29 -0400 Received: from unknown(208.217.183.161) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma020539; Thu, 31 Aug 00 12:04:56 -0400 Received: by atlconn1.panamsat.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:04:53 -0400 Message-ID: <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696020FD092@grnexch1.panamsat.com> From: "Falk, Aaron" To: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" Cc: "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" Subject: Reminder: WG last call for ERROR Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:58:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Working group last call is coming to an end for ERROR. Spencer will be following up with a summary of comments/changes for the draft before we submit it to the IESG. If there are any further comments, now is the time. --aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Falk, Aaron [mailto:aaron@panamsat.com] > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 10:23 AM > To: 'pilc@grc.nasa.gov' > Cc: Spencer Dawkins (E-mail); 'gab@sun.com'; 'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'; > 'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'; 'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com' > Subject: WG last call for ERROR > > > The document "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links > with Errors" is > ready for working group last call. Please send comments to > the PILC mail > list. > > A current version of the draft can be obtained from > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-error-04.txt > > From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 31 20:24:58 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14524 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id RAA16139 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA14438; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id RAA28454; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:14:49 -0400 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com(192.161.36.5) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma028233; Thu, 31 Aug 00 17:14:10 -0400 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com ([192.54.3.60]) by blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id OAA03471; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA05989; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xch-pssbh-03.ca.boeing.com by blv-hub-01.boeing.com with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:13:54 -0700 Received: by xch-pssbh-03.ca.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:13:53 -0700 Message-Id: From: "Mohammad, Alimuddin" To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov, "'tcpsat@grc.nasa.gov'" Subject: How to change the Win2k MTU value of a PPP over a dial-up (serial) interface Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:13:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Q: How to change the Win2k MTU value of a PPP over a dial-up (serial) interface? I need to change the TCP frame size to 536 or the MTU size to 576 to validate a simulation model. With Windows2000, changing the registry KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\ccs\Services\tcpip\Parameters\Interface MTU value = 576 on the Ethernet interface, worked. However, this did not work for interfaces for an internal modem (Viking's v.90 ISA Controllerless modem) nor for an external modem (USRobatics' Courier v.Everything). The TCP MTU size over the network captured by the netmonitor were still 1500. I also tried using the key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\ccs\Services\NdisWan\Parameters IPMTU value=576, it still did not work. I have the PMTU discovery turned off even though there was no router/packet-cell switch in between the two modems. I know MTU = 576 for PPP over a dial-up link is possible because we do have a benchmark log file that indicated the TCP frame size was 536 (i.e., MTU=576) using an unknown internal modem. Thanks. ---Alim From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 31 20:43:45 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14742 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA19444 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA19426 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA13364; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:16:57 -0400 Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se(194.237.142.110) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma013275; Thu, 31 Aug 00 18:16:24 -0400 Received: from eed.ericsson.se (mailhost.eed.ericsson.se [164.48.133.33]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.10.1/WIREfire-1.3) with ESMTP id e7VMG6w06267; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:16:06 +0200 (MEST) Received: from E00D05905E94A.eed.ericsson.se (ki-161.kiedt.ericsson.se [147.214.100.161]) by eed.ericsson.se (8.8.8+Sun/1.1.mit) with ESMTP id AAA18649; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:16:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000831235740.00b56c80@chapelle.ericsson.se> X-Sender: eedrel@chapelle.ericsson.se X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:14:19 +0200 To: "Falk, Aaron" From: Reiner Ludwig Subject: Re: Reminder: WG last call for ERROR Cc: "'pilc@grc.nasa.gov'" , "Spencer Dawkins (E-mail)" , "'gab@sun.com'" , "'kojo@cs.helsinki.fi'" , "'vaidya@cs.tamu.edu'" , "'vincent.magret@aud.alcatel.com'" In-Reply-To: <8046A317B5F4D21186610008C7EBB696020FD092@grnexch1.panamsat .com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk At 11:58 31.08.00 -0400, Falk, Aaron wrote: >Working group last call is coming to an end for ERROR. Spencer will be >following up with a summary of comments/changes for the draft before we >submit it to the IESG. Asking the IESG for what? Informational RFC? Some comments: - Page 7 / 1st para: "... constantly closing 'trained' TCP connections ... . This is true even with HTTP1.1 ..." I don't understand this last sentence. HTTP1.1 is *not* constantly closing 'trained' TCP connections. It might do so after some idle time (RTO) though. Is that was it meant? - Page 7 / last para: "In low-speed, ... (e.g., wireless WAN ...), TCP windows are much smaller, ..." This is often *not* the case. E.g., if the mobile client is sending and its interface buffer has default size (e.g., 50 packets in FreeBSD). This allows for lots of queueing and the sending TCP will reach the advertized window. We observed this, e.g., in one of our studies http://iceberg.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/Ludwig-Sigmetrics99/index.html - Why do we need the appendices? Do they add to the document when nothing of it is recommended? - Page 16 / 1st para: The Eifel algorithm makes *no* assumption about any link layer. It's a general mechanism that makes TCP more robust in the face of spurious timeouts and packet re-orderings, no matter what the reasons are that caused those events. ///Reiner From owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Thu Aug 31 20:45:05 2000 Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14755 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from listserv@localhost) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) id SAA20334 for pilc-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov (firewall-user@guardian03.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.146.12]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA LeRC 8.9.1.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA20315 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov; id SAA15271; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:29:58 -0400 Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se(194.237.142.110) by seraph3.lerc.nasa.gov via smap (V5.5) id xma015218; Thu, 31 Aug 00 18:29:05 -0400 Received: from eed.ericsson.se (mailhost.eed.ericsson.se [164.48.133.33]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.10.1/WIREfire-1.3) with ESMTP id e7VMT3w06898 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:29:03 +0200 (MEST) Received: from E00D05905E94A.eed.ericsson.se (ki-92.kiedt.ericsson.se [147.214.100.92]) by eed.ericsson.se (8.8.8+Sun/1.1.mit) with ESMTP id AAA19550 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:29:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000901001856.00ae93f0@chapelle.ericsson.se> X-Sender: eedrel@chapelle.ericsson.se X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:25:46 +0200 To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov From: Reiner Ludwig Subject: Comments to PILC-SLOW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-pilc@lerc.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk - page 4 / last para: "In addition, timestamp do not seem to have much of an impact on RTO estimation either [AlPa99]." Oh yes, it does: http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/ccr/archive/2000/july00/ccr_200007-ludwig.html - page 7 / first para: "... [RED93], should be implemented in all Internet routers, including the last-hop router ..." I would add that it should also be implemented in the host itself which can be seen as a special case of a router. It has exactly the same problem of queues growing too large: http://iceberg.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/Ludwig-Sigmetrics99/index.html ///Reiner