Subject: Re: [72attendees] Guestroom Network

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> We seem to have 100 Mbps to the rooms (I was able to download a few  
> podcasts at 11 MB/sec this morning) so it looks like bandwidth isn't  
> the bottleneck. Maybe it's the burstiness of the traffic, or maybe the  
> NAT can't handle the load?

I don't seem to be getting the same good in-room service others are
getting.  I can barely get DHCP, usually register 30-70% packet loss,
and even the (network-based) TV is blank most of the time.

The wireless in the lounge appears solid so far though.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "KHATRI PARESH" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:52:37 +0800

Thanks for the lesson on rate-limiting, internet congestion and router/switch buffering.  Given the non-technical backround of the members of this list and the people who set up this network, I am sure that we are all sufficiently enlightened now ;-)

Paresh Khatri -- sent from my Blackberry !

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: LANGE Andrew
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Mon Jul 28 06:27:35 2008
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Guestroom Network

On 27 jul 2008, at 19:35, LANGE Andrew wrote:

> We have installed a rate limit on the ports facing the guestroom  
> network to alleviate problems that the guestroom network was  
> experiencing.
>

You mean rate limiting in the sense of throwing away packets when  
traffic goes beyond a certain bandwidth limit?

This is a very effective way of creating synchronization in the  
congestion window of otherwise unrelated TCPs, thereby reducing  
throughput to significantly less than the rate limit imposed.

The congestion seems to be worse now that IETF'ers have returned to  
their rooms than yesterday at around the same time. (There are  
probably more people here now than yesterday, though.)

If the connection between the IETF network and the hotel network is  
with gigabit on the IETF side and 100 Mbit at the hotel side with a  
simple switch in the middle, it's likely that the switch can't  
adequately handle the bursts, using a router interface at 100 Mbps  
will probably be better because routers have more buffers. Some active  
queue management, such as RED, should also help.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees