Re: Modem Advice

Article View: comp.protocols.ppp

Article #152

Back to comp.protocols.ppp Previous Next

#152

From: Jim Rees
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:47

14 lines
1380 bytes

In article <BOB.92Sep27212400@roughy.MorningStar.Com>, bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:

  Some SLIP and PPP implementations have implemented a type-of-service
  queueing scheme that some users have observed to improve their
  interactive responsiveness on a line that's otherwise heavy-laden with
  batch protocol traffic.  For example, ftp.ee.lbl.gov:cslipbeta.tar.Z
  contains a clever hack that gives telnet, rlogin, and FTP command
  packets priority over everything else in the queue.  Our company's
  PPP/SLIP product does the same thing.

I don't understand why this queueing was done on the basis of tcp port
number rather than packet size.  Wouldn't it be far more general to put all
packets below a certain size on the fast queue?  I know this would result in
some packet re-ordering within connections, but that should be ok.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5b722dc8.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!terminator!pisa.citi.umich.edu!rees

References: <BGLENDEN.92Sep21090444@colobus.cv.nrao.edu> <BOB.92Sep27212400@roughy.MorningStar.Com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.ppp
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!terminator!pisa.citi.umich.edu!rees
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Modem Advice
Message-ID: <5b722dc8.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu>
Sender: news@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Usenet Owner)
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
References: <BGLENDEN.92Sep21090444@colobus.cv.nrao.edu> <BOB.92Sep27212400@roughy.MorningStar.Com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:47:14 GMT
Lines: 14

Reply to Parent Message