[34890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network for Sale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Wed Feb 21 16:52:33 2001
Message-Id: <200102212123.NAA50668@redpaul.mfnx.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Message from "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
of "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:03:43 PST." <3A942D2F.4380BCED@ehsco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:23:31 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > RTT doesn't drive performance, (bw*delay)-loss does.
>
> FWIW, the heavily interactive apps are more affected by RTT than they are
> by bandwidth. Network games are the new TELNET. They despise varying
> latency levels, and are generally oblivious to bandwidth. Your point is
> still mostly valid, in that the only thing they hate more than varying
> latency is packet loss, but if the network isn't losing packets then RTT
> does affect "perfomance" for the heavily interactive apps.
i wasn't talking about network performance in general. (and i would never,
ever recommend (bw*delay)-loss as a routing metric!) this is in the context
of so-called global server load balancing. RTT may, or may not, matter in
the decisions such a system must make ("serve this client from which proxy?")
