At 10:15 AM 12/18/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Flem, thanks for the confirmation.
>Chuck, given the age of the RFC, I seriously doubt that Nagle intended the
>router to do anything too complicated.
Routers were always part of the TCP/IP architecture, even if they were
called gateways or Interface Message Processors? But I agree with your main
point that routers generally don't play a role with the Nagle algorithm,
unless the router is one of the TCP endpoints.
>The Cisco command reference I suspect was written by somebody who didn't
>delve too deeply into what the command does. I guess I would have expected
>some note pointing out that it only applies to sessions terminating at the
>router,
That's for sure.
>if that is the case, as most IOS commands affect through traffic
>(OK, most commands don't deal with the transport layer...)
>And how many people use XWindows to connect to a router?
Well don't forget Telnet runs on top of TCP too.
Priscilla
>JMcL
>
>
>
>"Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 15/12/2000 05:29:54
>pm
>
>Please respond to "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc:
>
>
>Subject: RE: Nagle's algorithm
>
>
>Jen, I see your point. I just finished a quick read of RFC 896 (Congestion
>Control in IP/TCP Internetworks)
>
>Recognizing that TCP is responsible for end to end reliable data
>communications, it would seem reasonable to think that the Nagle service
>should not effect transit traffic.
>
>On the other hand, the RFC does mention issues on slow links, and does
>mention gateways ( routers ) in a couple of places in a way that imply that
>the edge router is the place where the mechanism is best put to use. The
>Cisco references I browsed appear to quote verbatim from the RFC, talking
>about the single character of data in a TCP packet, and the overhead
>involved. The further description of the service Nagle implies ( but does
>not state - in my reading, anyway ) that a router running service Nagle
>acts
>as a host proxy, almost in a stateful manner, examining the behaviour of
>the
>traffic, and acting accordingly.
>
>I'm too sleepy to attempt to get through RFC 2001 this evening. The intro
>to
>that one talks about modern TCP implementations, saying to me, anyway, that
>maybe congestion control mechanisms such as Nagle are now built into end
>station stacks.
>
>What were your thoughts from your reading?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 6:34 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Nagle's algorithm
>
>Does setting 'service nagle' on a router have any effect on TCP sessions
>transitting the router, or does it only have an effect on sessions that
>terminate at the router?
>Various bits on CCO vaguely imply that it affects through traffic, but
>having read up on how Nagle's algorithm works, I can't see how it could -
>as it works at the TCP layer, I think it should only affect sessions where
>the router is a session endpoint.
>
>Can anyone confirm this, or am I missing something?
>
>Ta,
>JMcL
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
