cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-09-10 - Re: Imminent Death of the Internet, GIF at 11

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Message Hash: c6274f7a8b3be7e86b2a7c6131255b2c75aa34a6a0e1879d91fca5b5b038e233
Message ID: <199609092203.SAA25379@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960909175135.23624A-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-10 03:45:33 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:45:33 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:45:33 +0800
To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Imminent Death of the Internet, GIF at 11
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960909175135.23624A-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Message-ID: <199609092203.SAA25379@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Simon Spero writes:
> Remember, though - TCPs initial estimate of the congestion window is 
> never less than one packet, large numbers of opening connections can 
> still (I think) lead to congestion collapse. It can defnitely get close 
> to it.

Sure. TCP, especially without SACK but even with such schemes, more or
less requires an average of no less than one packet per RTT. However,
the other half of what I said is that bandwidth *is* rising.

Perry

Thread