[97844] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: TCP congestion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jul 12 15:30:57 2007
To: Philip Lavine <source_route@yahoo.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:07:00 PDT."
<30366.27320.qm@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:29:37 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1184268577_3357P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:07:00 PDT, Philip Lavine said:
> What is strange is there is nothing prior to the drop off that would be an
> impetus for congestion (no high BW utilization or packet loss).
Just because there wasn't any congestion reason that *you* could see where you
hat your instrumentation doesn't mean there's 100% congestion free end-to-end.
(Feel free to hit delete if you actually *do* have instrumentation looking
both directions on every segment involved).
Who knows, maybe a few packets got corrupted on the wire, and the TCP chucksum
actually caught it and dropped the offending packets.
--==_Exmh_1184268577_3357P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFGloEhcC3lWbTT17ARAhJ+AJ9hZzBts0geN/HQQyrtVpHB9rHaBwCg5aQA
O5kDiauP3dxbe3i+qXsnf+0=
=cOY3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1184268577_3357P--
