Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!D.ISI.EDU!GOWER
From: GOWER@D.ISI.EDU (Neil E. Gower)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Congestion in the Arpanet
Message-ID: <8610031636.AA00904@ucbvax>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 11:33:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610031636.AA00904
Posted: Thu Oct  2 11:33:44 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 07:06:23 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


Dennis, thanks for the copy of BBNs progress and plan of attack.  We are
having trouble understanding why the busiest nodes are not in the middle
of the cross-country paths (SAC, TEXAS and COLLINS (ours)).  Or at the
entrances to those paths.  The only one of the four mentioned by BBN,
which seems to fit the "cross-country bottleneck" is UWISC.

There also seems to be no explanation why a PSN cannot give reasonable
response between two of its own nodes.  We see just as poor (or worse)
service between equipment in the same room here as we do between here
and D.ISI.EDU (ISI27).  Maybe its because our packets are going to ISI27
or somewhere else first.

It does seem that all four of the PSNs mentioned are in areas where
heavy (not necessarily cross-country) traffic would occur.  This would
indicate problems in the areas of shortages of packet buffers and/or
virtual circuits and/or slowness in setting up virtual circuits.

I agree that we have an ONION of problems, but wouldn't it make sense to
resolve the ones that are "localized" to one PSN first?

Regards,
Neil Gower
-------