 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to knightmb
Re: No Clue said by knightmb:But if the same link had 2 IP address in which they both shared that 1 MB/s pipe, and 1 IP address was maxing out the link with 1 or 100 connections, the other IP address would still get exactly half of the bandwidth for it's one single connection it had going. What you are describing here is the proposal from Bob Briscoe and George Ou. I say proposal because it (reportedly) does not work as you are suggesting it does.
Are you saying that you've run a test that shows otherwise? If so, please describe your test environment (some stacks behave differently than others). Maybe we can figure out why the results came out like that.
said by knightmb:TCP/IP is suppose to work properly from IP address to IP address, not IP address to self. I don't understand this final line at all. Can you rephrase it?
said by knightmb:When they wrote the TCP/IP stuff decades ago, they didn't have to worry about NAT routers and how it changes the rules. Two responses to this:
1. TCP definitely has been revised since RFC 793. In so much as each revision changes the protocol somewhat (aka an "update"), it's not exactly fair to say that NAT hasn't been considered.
2. (And now to contradict myself,) NAT is not yet an Internet Standard. Various implementations of NAT to not play the same -- some do not play well together. So what NAT does, or what TCP does across a NAT device, probably varies.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
