Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:40:18 -0600 (CST) From: jpt@msc.edu (Joseph Thomas) To: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan) Cc: shovey@buffnet.net, robert@nanguo.chalmers.com.au, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC 1323 default settings (was Re: progress report on connection problems) Message-ID: <199701282340.RAA10860@ww.msc.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970129092110.13981t-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> from "Daniel O'Callaghan" at Jan 29, 97 09:40:21 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Steve wrote: > > [ Robert writes about his problem with FreeBSD machines and his Annex] > > > > I had similar problems using annexes as term servers with user - and have > > posted numerous times that this problem only exists with freebsd - sco, > > linux, etc doesnt have trouble - only every time I post it I get bashed > > about the head and lectured on freebsd having perfect tcp/ip and > > everything else in the world having faulty tcp/ip. > > Well, turns out that a Linux 2.0 box also stalled on this. However, > methinks it might be time to raise the issue of default settings for RFC > 1323 extensions in FreeBSD boxes. > > Since RFC 1323 deals with long fat pipes, which very few of us have, it > would make sense to turn the extensions off in the shipped /etc/sysconfig. > Those people who are communicating with TCP between the two ends of a 1.5 > Mbps satellite link, or an intercontinental 45 Mbps link, probably know > who they are and can turn the extensions on. I know that some people in > the continental USA can claim a 45 Mbps path to their favourite ftp site 4 > states away, but surely those paths are used by others, reducing the > 'fatness' of the pipe for RFC 1323 purposes. Local area ATM might be > 'fat' but generally is not 'long' enough to cause the problems with RFC > 1323 addresses. As a data point - running a local-area ATM with "out of the box" parameters (for 2.2 this looks to be 16K windows with no-scaling), I get 60 KB/s out of the box vs 3.0-3.5 MB/s into the box, [notice the really bad discrepancy] via ftp. With larger windows (60KB), I can get in the range of 3.5-4.0 MB/s [either 'put xxx /dev/null' or 'get xxx /dev/null' so local disk access is somewhat unrelated. That is, the numbers don't vary much if I'm sending from local disk or receiving to /dev/null.] Using ttcp (tcp user application, memory to memory), I've transmitted close to 70 Mb/s, in the "local-area". I'm not sure that getting twice the throughput counts as being 'not long enough'. [I'm simply providing this as a data point for the discussion, not attempting or interested in arguing for or against either side.] > > Leaving the extensions on by default causes much grief for people with old > Annexes, prevents people whose ISPs use Annexes from reading FreeBSD box > web pages or sending mail to FreeBSD boxes, and generates enormous amounts > of traffic on the FreeBSD mailing lists. > > regards, > > Danny > -- Joseph Thomas E/Mail: jpt@msc.edu Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc. jpt@magic.net 1200 Washington Ave So. Tel: +1 612 337 3558 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1227 FAX: +1 612 337 3400 You cannot see what I see because you see what you see. You cannot know what I know because you know what you know. "Mostly Harmless" - Douglas Adams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701282340.RAA10860>