Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP maximum segment size determination
Message-ID: <3370@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 21-Nov-87 21:07:28 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.3370
Posted: Sat Nov 21 21:07:28 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Nov-87 06:59:36 EST
References: <283116.871110.JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 22

JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("James B. VanBokkelen") wrote:
> If gateway gurus saw their way clear to do so, they might help some fraction
> of the world by arranging that IP fragments aren't transmitted consecutively
> (if there is other traffic to handle) or by inserting a little time delay
> if the Ether or other non-serial media is idle.

It's hard to believe that in this age of utterly cheap dense RAM,
otherwise sane people are proposing inserting artificial delays between
Ethernet packets because a lowball vendor wouldn't put, say, TWO
buffers on their card!

The free market has a clear solution to this problem...

[I admit I'm prejudiced, since I worked on Suns, which currently seem
to have the highest Ethernet thruput, but they were built out of
standard Ethernet chips and DRAMs available to everyone.  You too can
handle infinite back to back packets, if you just design with that in
mind as Sun did.]
-- 
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu			  gnu@toad.com
Love your country but never trust its government.
		      -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania