On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Robert M. Enger wrote:
Steinar:
There is a large body of work from competent and well known researchers
that assert the claim. I certainly lack standing to question their
results.
Empirically, download speeds to home are nearly cut in half (18Mbps)
from sources that are su
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 04:00:40PM -0400, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> In your note below you speak of 'moving on to something else' when
> PPLB comes.
No, I actually don't.
> PPLB destabilizes TCP. It elicits erroneous retransmissions, squanders
> capacity and lowers performance.
>
> You are sugges
Steinar:
There is a large body of work from competent and well known
researchers that assert the claim. I certainly lack standing to question their
results.
Empirically, download speeds to home are nearly cut in half (18Mbps) from
sources
that are subjected to packet reordering along the pat
> In your note below you speak of 'moving on to something else' when
> PPLB comes.
>
> PPLB destabilizes TCP. It elicits erroneous retransmissions,
> squanders capacity and lowers performance.
I would actually dispute this. I agree that PPLB will *occasionally*
lead to out-of-order packets, whic
Jay:
In your note below you speak of 'moving on to something else' when PPLB comes.
PPLB destabilizes TCP. It elicits erroneous retransmissions, squanders
capacity and lowers performance.
You are suggesting that we replace TCP in all the computers in the world?
Bob
At 01:43 PM 4/24/2005,
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 02:00:48AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPLB is coming, and the smart
> > people will be prepared for it. They dumb people, well, they're dumb.
> > What can be expected from dumb people?
>
> What you seem to be missing i
--- Begin Message ---
Hello everybody
First of all I have to apologize on behalf of Trend Micro.
I understand that you faced severe problems due to a significant
performance issue on PC's that have loaded the pattern file 2.594.00
Manual Solution:
To fix this problem, please follow the solutio
http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=14545
Pete
> > Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPLB is coming, and the smart
> > people will be prepared for it. They dumb people, well, they're dumb.
> > What can be expected from dumb people?
>
> What you seem to be missing is that the *really* smart people will be
> prepared for it when it
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:35:11 PDT, Bill Stewart said:
> There are a variety of things that don't like PPLB, notably IPSEC.
The fact that a variety of things (like PMTU Discovery) don't like it when
people block all ICMP doesn't stop it from happening. Similarly for a number
of other less-than-perf
> > Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPLB is coming, and the smart
> > people will be prepared for it. They dumb people, well, they're dumb.
> > What can be expected from dumb people?
There are a variety of things that don't like PPLB, notably IPSEC.
One problem is that if packet lengt
> PPPoEoL2TPoIPSECoLANEoIPV6oRFC1149.
What a bunch of mean nasty ugly stuff.
My Sonic.net connection is simply rfc1483 (IP packets on an ATM PVC
with a standard SNAP header), and I think that's probably what SBC is
delivering them.
AT&T's business SDSL and IDSL circuits also work that way
12 matches
Mail list logo
