On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:53 AM, David Luyer wrote:
> Often the server TCP stack and the customer TCP stack may be dodgy and
> sometimes
> even unable to directly communicate, but the good TCP stack in the
> middle can
> communicate to both of the dodgy TCP stacks at either end as well
Tony Rall wrote:
> > Specifically made for satellite networks:
> > ip tcp window-size 75
>
> I don't understand the benefit of this on a router. Except for
> connections where the router itself is an endpoint (telnet to the
router,
> for example), the router has no need to even be aware of
On Tuesday, 2002/03/05 at 08:42 ZE2, Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> New 12.2(8)T feature in Cisco IOS called TCP Windows Scaling:
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/12
> 2t8/tcpwslfn.htm
>
> Specifically made for satellite networks:
>
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Clayton Fiske wrote:
>
> > kernel buffer and will misreport speed). Open a few more connections like
> > that and you've exausted your kernel memory and most likely will have a
> > panic. If you did these settings on a web server, all it would take is a
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:38:42AM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> You should also beware of turning up TCP window settings to whatever big
> number you feel like. I can only vouch for unix systems here, but the way
> the socket interface and kernel tcp works requires a buffer which is b
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:42:22AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> New 12.2(8)T feature in Cisco IOS called TCP Windows Scaling:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t8/tcpwslfn.htm
>
> Specifically made for satellite networks:
> ip tcp window-si
New 12.2(8)T feature in Cisco IOS called TCP Windows Scaling:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t8/tcpwslfn.htm
Specifically made for satellite networks:
ip tcp window-size 75
-Hank
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:01:04PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:01:04PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
> > The receiver is the one that informs the sender how large of a
> > window it can accept, so it can be practical for a subscriber
> > installation. It wouldn't be a good idea to park a bunch of
> > servers behind one of these links,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 12:14:43PM -0500, Eric Oosting wrote:
> Is there something else specific to one-way satellite connections that you
> are attributing these problems with asymmetric routing to? There is
> nothing inherently wrong with asymmetric routing that causes high latency
> or perceiv
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Rowland, Alan D
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Satellite latency
Not to mention that -5 degree or so look angle (negative elevation) from
the poles being hard to acquire. ;) But with enough e
10 matches
Mail list logo
