Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:05:35 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To:        Barney Wolff <barney@tp.databus.com>
Cc:        Oleg Polyakov <opolyakov@yahoo.com>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: Initial congestion window increase
Message-ID:  <20020814233935.F97690-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020814121701.GA27934@tp.databus.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Barney Wolff wrote:

> You're assuming that the jumbo will be the successful MTU.  But at
> the start of a connection PMTUD has yet to run, and you could be
> sending jumbos into a choppy link somewhere on the path.
>
> The tcp-impl IETF WG had (and the email list still has) a very smart
> bunch of people with decades of experience with TCP.  Those RFCs
> didn't just come out of somebody's idle thought.
>
> Slowstart flightsize doesn't matter a whole lot on a lan (as long
> as it's at least 2 to compensate for delayed ack) other than for
> locker-room comparisons with Linux.  But it does matter a lot on
> long pipes, whether fat or thin, and that's where the risk of
> an overaggressive strategy is that you can congest the Internet.

Hrm, I'm not sure that PMTUD is a strong enough argument against X*MSS
slowstart for gigabit networks.  Think about the following cases:

1.  Server with MTU 1500, client with MTU 1480 (they're going over PPPoE
or something similar.)

- All four 1500 byte packets sent back to back, all 4 bounced with ICMP
too big messages.  Bandwidth wasted:  All 4 packets traversing the net,
all 4 icmps coming back across the net.

2.  Server with MTU 9000, client with MTU 1500.

- All four 9000 byte packets sent back to back, bounced back at local
border router with MTU of 1500.  Bandwidth wasted:  Internal network
bandwidth only.  Perhaps less than 4 packets, if all data fit into a
single 9000 byte packet.

Considering this, I don't believe that the gigabit host using jumbo frames
would be any more harmful than a 100mbps host using normal ethernet
frames.

Mike "Silby" Silbersack



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020814233935.F97690-100000>