Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

On Nov 11, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > If you are trying to saturate the link in both directions each of the > acknowledge packets will compete against the other stream and will have a > hard time reaching back. I first read this thread when I was half-asleep, stupid me - concu

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Apply a shaper (not a policer) towards the service provider at each end of 95Mbps or so (will probably require tweaking). Single TCP session is probably managing to balance itself into the ~100Mbps circuit. Two/many TCP sessions are probably bursting into a policer (and effectively each othe

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Le 11 nov. 2013 à 06:47, Brad Gould a écrit : > Apply a shaper (not a policer) towards the service provider at each end of > 95Mbps or so (will probably require tweaking). Tried that, I applied a rate-limiter on my port facing my provider. No change... > > Single TCP session is probably man

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Hello, Thanks for this useful feedback. Best regards. Le 11 nov. 2013 à 06:32, Octavio Alvarez a écrit : > On 11/10/2013 11:11 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: - TCP traffic reaches up to 90 Mbits/s for one way streams (both ways), - TCP traffic hits some kind of

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

On 11/10/2013 11:11 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: >>> - TCP traffic reaches up to 90 Mbits/s for one way streams (both >>> ways), >>> >>> - TCP traffic hits some kind of limit and isn't able to achieve more >>> than 40-60 Mbits/s in average <=== That's the problem we are facing I

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Le 11 nov. 2013 à 06:21, Randy a écrit : > aah, so there is a 100M port in the picture. Yes, wrote that in my first email :-) > > the best you can achieve is 90M of throughout; which you are. True and verified. > > for UDP; given the nature of the protocol - a sends a packet-of-a-certain

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 logs - unimplemented function

Hi Jure, The issue is cosmetic meaning no functionality impact and will be fixed in the next release. Best Regards, [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg] Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Access Group (SPAG) wa...@cisco.com

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Hello, I don't have access to the CPE, or intermediate PEs, they are not under our responsability. Yes, we already been down that road and it has been increased more than enough on both. Wireshark captures confirm that. Thanks. Le 11 nov. 2013 à 05:07, Richard Clayton a écrit : > Whats th

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Le 11 nov. 2013 à 04:22, Randy a écrit : > > - TCP traffic hits some kind of limit and isn't able to achieve more than 40-60 Mbits/s in average <=== That's the problem we are facing > > what happens if you do this - > > > a transfer from host A(fra) to host B(ham) and

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Whats the cpe cpu running at with both streams, have you tried adjusting the window sizes on the servers, could help with bandwidth delay product. On Sunday, 10 November 2013, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: > 2013/11/10 Phil Mayers > > > > On 11/10/2013 05:42 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: >

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

2013/11/10 Phil Mayers > On 11/10/2013 05:42 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: > > - UDP traffic reaches up to 95 Mbits/s for one way streams (both ways) >> and simaltaneous bi-directionnal streams, >> > > If there's no (significant) loss or reordering on a simultanous bi-dir UDP > stream a

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS "POP" design

On 9 November 2013 20:26, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > I dont have access to pricing atm, but are the 3600X's a "lot" more > expensive than 4948's? > For comparison, 4948E-E (which has 48 copper ports, four 10G SFP+ ports and "Enterprise" software for full IP routing features) lists at US$ 20k. Ad

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS "POP" design

On Saturday, November 09, 2013 10:26:15 PM CiscoNSP List wrote: > Very interesting - Im liking this as a solution! Ive had > a look at the ME3600X (Are you using the ME-3600X-24TS? > i.e. you dont require the "CX" version for L3 + L2 > VPNs?), and you need Advanced Metro IP Access? We generally

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

On 11/10/2013 05:42 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: - UDP traffic reaches up to 95 Mbits/s for one way streams (both ways) and simaltaneous bi-directionnal streams, If there's no (significant) loss or reordering on a simultanous bi-dir UDP stream at 95Mbit/sec, that suggests the pipe i

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

Hello Roland, Yes, we have checked counters on all ports under our responsability, carriers' equipments and third party LL provider. At first, we discovered speed/duplex mismatch between WE and CPE on customer site, this has been fixed since then. Then, we saw output discards on CPE device (me

Re: [c-nsp] Effect of simultaneous TCP sessions on bandwidth

On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: > Yes, sorry but I forgot to mention that we have activated every possible TCP > extension on servers in order to support latency effects over long WAN > distances. Due to the nature of TCP, delay-product has throughput effects even i