[45903] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Satellite latency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Feb 27 10:37:31 2002
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:36:52 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481)
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Tim Devries <zsolutions@cogeco.ca>, nanog@merit.edu
To: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020227101822.A90647@reptiles.org>
Message-Id: <D24F0984-2B97-11D6-8386-00039312C852@automagic.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 10:18 , Jim Mercer wrote:
> its been a while since i looked at it, but i seem to recall there was a
> lack
> of implementation/adhereance to that RFC in windows TCP stacks.
I don't think that has been the case for a while, now.
> i think for RFC1323 to be effective, it needs to be working on the
> sending
> and receiving systems, not just the intermediary routers.
RFC1323 can only be supported on TCP endpoints, so there's nothing you
can or should do on intermediary routers.
There are good descriptions of general satellite transmission
characteristics for IP together with a recipe book of mechanisms which
can improve TCP performance in RFC2488. RFC2760 may also be interesting.
Joe
