[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Privoxy usage?
I have heard of the "TCP over TCP" issue but have not had any bad
experiences so far. I am currently using both TCP and UDP-based VPN
systems and while the TCP-based one is a bit slower, it still seems
very stable for applications such as Terminal Services, FTP,
I do notice problems with some apps (FTP for example) if I'm trying
to use a TCP-based connection over a satellite link - lot of TCP
RSTs and "Zero Window"-type errors in the sniff though on some
satellite systems even UDP-based tunnels don't seem to work very
well for anything other than low bandwidth applications.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:52:46 -0400 Michael_google gmail_Gersten
>On 8/18/07, nobledark@xxxxxxxxxxxx <nobledark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have several options - what's the issue w/ using TCP?
>TCP over TCP has some problems, the least/biggest of which is the
>If there is a communication problem, TCP has a "back off and
>rule. This starts with "I didn't get an acknowledgment. I might be
>sending data too fast, or data might have gotten lost. I'll pause
>two seconds, and then send the data again".
>The problem? If the low level TCP stream does this, then any
>level stream with data in transit will also see a delay, and a
>I may be doing a horrible job of explaining the problem. A simple
>terminal session may have no problem -- a single packet of data
>eventually get an acknowledgment back.
>But if there is a stream with more and more data behind it, then
>wind up with an ever increasing resending that never gets caught
>Eventually all the TCP channels break.
>TCP was designed with certain assumptions in mind. It does not
>a general purpose transport -- that was never it's goal.
>IP over IP works.
>UDP over UDP works if your UDP protocol supports it.
>TCP over TCP fails. The timeout rules cannot stack properly.
Make up to $100/hour by getting a Sports Medicine Degree. Click Now!