| To: | Cacophonix <cacophonix@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4.1: TCP assertion failed |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:35:31 +1300 |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20010218175128.5008.qmail@web119.yahoomail.com>; from cacophonix@yahoo.com on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:51:28AM -0800 |
| References: | <200102181729.UAA24636@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20010218175128.5008.qmail@web119.yahoomail.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:51:28AM -0800, Cacophonix wrote:
If possible you may want to test in the presence of asymmetric
routing - that often causes problems with devices like these that
rewrite tcp window advertisements in the middle of the network -
i.e, traffic in the forward direction flows through the device,
but in the reverse direction does not.
The packeteers detect asymmetric flows and revert to queuing; the
only rate-shape when they can see the whole conversation. Because I
work for a carrier and we have a non-negligible amount of asymmetric
routing (it's normal I say, not argue) when we had packeteers they
would get really upset.
--cw
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4.1: TCP assertion failed, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.1: TCP assertion failed, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4.1: TCP assertion failed, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4.1: TCP assertion failed, Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |