t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Douglas Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Injong Rhee"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject:
Greetings all,
On 23/09/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just i was pondering why we got different results and try to see if we can
come to some understanding on this different results we got. Who knows we
together might run into some fundamental research issues regarding
testing
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:43:22 -0400
"Injong Rhee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a resend with fixed web links. The links were broken in my previous
> email -- sorry about multiple transmissions.
> -
> Hi Doug,
>
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:43:22 -0400
"Injong Rhee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a resend with fixed web links. The links were broken in my previous
> email -- sorry about multiple transmissions.
> -
> Hi Doug,
>
This is a resend with fixed web links. The links were broken in my previous
email -- sorry about multiple transmissions.
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks for sharing your paper. Also congratulations to the acceptance of
your journa
> I was not sure whether this whole new page is good enough to make another
> public announcement about this paper
At the risk of repeating myself, the page referred to contains the
results of approx. 500 new test runs (and we have carried out many more
than that which are summarised in the te
Doug Leith wrote-
> I suggest you take a closer look Injong - there is a whole page of data
> from tests covering a wide range of levels of background traffic. These
> results are all new, and significantly strengthen the conclusions I
> think, as is the expanded explanatory discussion of the
I suggest you take a closer look Injong - there is a whole page of data
from tests covering a wide range of levels of background traffic. These
results are all new, and significantly strengthen the conclusions I
think, as is the expanded explanatory discussion of the observed
behaviour of the
I wasn't aware of the planned move to cubic in Linux. Can I ask the
rationale for this ? Cubic is, of course, closely related to HTCP
(borrowing the HTCP idea of using elapsed time since last backoff as the
quantity used to adjust the cwnd increase rate) which *is* tested in the
reported study.
Ian McDonald wrote:
On 9/23/06, Douglas Leith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For those interested in TCP for high-speed environments, and perhaps
also people interested in TCP evaluation generally, I'd like to point
you towards the results of a detailed experimental study which are now
available at:
On 9/23/06, Douglas Leith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For those interested in TCP for high-speed environments, and perhaps
also people interested in TCP evaluation generally, I'd like to point
you towards the results of a detailed experimental study which are now
available at:
http://www.hamilton
11 matches
Mail list logo
