Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Is the Internet usable for wide-area interactive conversations?
Message-ID: <17825.Jun1904.30.3691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 91 04:30:36 GMT
References: <2039.Jun1803.33.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jun18.224350.21721@Think.COM>
Organization: IR
Lines: 16

In article <1991Jun18.224350.21721@Think.COM> barmar@think.com writes:
> In article <2039.Jun1803.33.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >And how good was that IP service? The minimum round trip time was rather
> >impressive: one sixth of a second. But the maximum (not counting the
> >unreachable periods) was awful: over ten seconds. The average was over a
> >second, and the sample standard deviation was a whopping 1.8 seconds.
> Sounds like a problem at the NYU end.

If it were, I wouldn't be able to get reliable connections from (e.g.)
Princeton to NYU while BNL was getting a consistent ``network
unreachable''. It is within PSI's reach, but this is all beside the
point. Today, the network, with its current routing protocols, cannot
handle the user-generated load between two major sites. Don't you think
this is a problem?

---Dan