Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:13:04 +1300 From: Joe Abley <jabley@patho.gen.nz> To: Damian Hasak <dhasak@fore.com> Cc: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, xiyuan@yahoo.com Subject: Re: net speed Message-ID: <20000120111303.B22700@patho.gen.nz> In-Reply-To: <003c01bf62a5$ec375b80$148190a9@dhasak-pc.fore.com>; from dhasak@fore.com on Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:52:16PM -0500 References: <20000119195314.A4167@patho.gen.nz> <003c01bf62a5$ec375b80$148190a9@dhasak-pc.fore.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:52:16PM -0500, Damian Hasak wrote: > hmm but i would think jitter is more related to timing on a CBR connection Can't a noticable variation in delay in successive segments (with the timestamp option, for example) result in a wildly varying transmit window size on both sides? Somewhat implementation-specific, certainly, but in general TCP behaves much more efficiently if the round-trip time is reasonable predictable (or poorly measured, alternatively, as long as the poor measurement is reasonable :) Virtual-circuit concerns in ATM mirror session concerns in TCP to some degree, except that congestion conditions are identified (and remedied) in somewhat different ways. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000120111303.B22700>