lp. The assistance
> I
> > have gotten from Sprint up to this point is that they find no problems.
> Due
> > to the consistency of 5Mbps I am suspecting rate limiting, but wanted to
> know
> > if I was overlooking something else.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Raaen
> > Network Engineer
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
Thanks for reporting back to curious minds.
Mike Gonnason
A quick search comes up with Scientific Linux, but I cannot provide
any claims to suitability. I have never even heard of it before, but
it is provided as a LiveCD.
http://linux.web.psi.ch/livecd/software.html
-Mike Gonnason
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Frank Bulk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
regarding capacity, I
generally they suggest setup iperf at both ends and run a few tests
with multiple TCP sessions so they can independently verify. Hopefully
Sprint will take your concerns to heart and assist you with testing.
-Mike Gonnason
n detection) or a jump (total reworking of network
policing architecture).
I am glad to say that whatever is decided, it will most likely be
implemented far faster than IPv6. As we will not have a specific
feature to buy us time from congestion, unlike what NAT did for IPv4.
:)
-Mike Gonnason
source consumption. His example is
individual flow rate fairness (traditional TCP congestion avoidance)
vs cost fairness (a combination of congestion "cost" and flow rate
associated with a specific entity). He also compares his cost fairness
methodology to existing proposed TCP variants, which Hank previously
mentioned. i.e. XCP, WFQ, ...
Any thoughts regarding this?
-Mike Gonnason
