[113851] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed Apr 22 10:28:42 2009
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:27:14 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <69683E52-2CFC-4A71-B737-87D199CB773D@hopcount.ca>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco
> >>pushes almost everything via a webserver. (they still have ftp
> >>servers,
> >>they just don't put much on them these days.)
> >
> > well, pretty much anyone who has large datasets to move around.
> > that default 64k buffer in the openssl libs pretty much sucks
> > rocks for large data flows.
>
> So you're saying FTP with no SSL is better than HTTP with no SSL?
>
>
> Joe
>
(see me LEAPING to conclusions....)
yes. (although I was actually thinking http w/ SSL vs FTP w/o SSL)
a really good review of the options was presented at the DoE/JT meeting
at UNL last summer. Basically, tuned FTP w/ large window support is
still king for pushing large datasets around.
--bill
