One concept that continues to elude many IT managers is the impact of latency on network design. 11 years ago, Stuart Cheshire wrote a detailed analysis on the difference between bandwidth and latency ISP links. Over a decade later, his writings are still relevant. Latency, not bandwidth, is often the key to network speed (or lack thereof).

I was reminded of Cheshire’s article and the underlying principles recently when working on an international WAN design. What Cheshire noted was that light signals pass through fibre optics at roughly 66% of the speed of light, or 200*10^6 m/s. Regardless of the equipment or protocols you use, your data cannot exceed that theoretical limit. This limit equals the delay between when a packet is sent, and when it is received, aka latency.

In the US, we tend to focus on bandwidth and carrier technology when ordering circuits, completely ignoring latency. For instance, when choosing between cable and DSL for your house do you ever ask the carrier for its latency SLA? Maybe you should. Using a cable connection a ping to www.google.com in Mountain View, CA from my house (137 KM) yields an average ping time (aka round-trip time or RTT) of 73ms. The theoretical latency for this distance (round trip) is 1.37ms meaning my cable connection is roughly 50 times worse than the theoretical limit. No surprise that Comcast focuses on bandwidth and not latency in its marketing.

Cable and DSL circuits in the US are generally not business class and do not carry any service level agreement (SLA) on latency or availability. Businesses who use these circuits for business critical services do so at their peril. Business circuits such as Frame Relay and MPLS do generally include latency SLAs, but understanding the difference between the SLA and your actual experience can have a massive impact the performance of your network. For instance, let’s say a carrier advertises a 55ms round trip SLA in the US. This SLA equals the maximum latency between any two points of presence (POP) on their network.

The coast-to-coast distance in the US is roughly 5,000KM for a theoretical latency of 50ms, so a 55ms RTT SLA is pretty good. But that doesn’t mean packets on your network will only take 55ms to cross the country. When designing your WAN you must also account for the latency added by your network equipment and your servers, and the distance between the carrier’s POP and your offices. As a result, a well designed US WAN will still experience 75-80ms ping times. A poorly designed WAN can experience much worse times.

Now consider creating an international WAN. In this case, you typically will receive multiple SLAs from the carrier for different parts of the network. For instance, when designing an MPLS connection between California and the UK, the SLAs would be approximately 55ms within the US plus 95ms to cross the Atlantic Ocean plus 21ms to connect within the UK. Add the latency of your network and you get ping times of 175ms to 200ms.

At this point you are probably asking yourself “so what?” Two tenths of a second is no big deal. The answer is the impact of latency on TCP windowing. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) has a flow control mechanism that senses latency and bandwidth between two hosts and determines the rates which data will be transferred. The TCP window is the amount a unacknowledged data a sender can transmit before waiting for a TCP ACK. As the latency increases, the TCP window shrinks, meaning the sender sends less data before waiting for an ACK. This helps reduce the amount of data that will need to be retransmitted in case a packet gets lost. Smaller windows equals more packets, and more packets equals more data because each packet carries the overhead of a 40 byte TCP/IP header regardless of if the payload is 1 byte or 1500 bytes.

The result is what I call the “Sandbag Problem.” Let’s say the two of us are trying to fill sandbags. My job is to scoop sand into a container and hand the full container to you (data). Your job is to empty the container into a sandbag and hand the empty container (ACK) back to me. Occasionally you drop the container so I have to fill it again (Retransmit). If we were standing next to each other, the time it takes for me to hand the container to you, have you empty it, and hand it back to me (latency) would be very small. Now imagine there is a 6′ wall between us, and I need to hand the container over to you.

The wall changes several aspects of our filling operation. First, the size of the container must be smaller because I cannot lift the same weight over my head that I can lift at waist level. Second, the time to complete one cycle would increase because it takes longer to lift the container 6′ than it does 3′. Third, you would drop more containers so retransmissions would increase. As the wall gets taller, the problem gets worse. If the wall were 10′ tall, we would be throwing containers instead of lifting them, so they would need to be even smaller. The containers would be traveling 20′ round trip instead of 12′ so the delay would increase 75%. And we would need to send a lot more containers to move the same amount of sand.

TCP works just like the sandbag problem. As distance increases, the TCP window shrinks, the time between transmission and acknowledgement increases, and the number of packets required to move the data grows. One reason for this is the effect of TCP congestion avoidance algorithms on the window size. The result is that the effective “speed” of the link decreases exponentially as the distance increases, regardless of bandwidth. RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance provides for mechanisms to deal with part of this problem. One method is to tune the TCP window on your hosts based upon a calculation of Bandwidth Delay Product (BDP). BDP = bandwidth x delay. Example: A 2Mb/s E1 link between California and the UK would have a BDP of 2.048Mb/s x 200ms = 51,200 Bytes. This is the ideal TCP window to fill the pipe so that the sender is not sitting idle waiting for ACK packets. Most hosts have a TCP Window default size of 64KB so, in this scenario, no adjustments would be needed. But, if the connection were a 45Mb/s DS3, then the BDP would be almost 1,100KB. In this scenario, TCP windows would need to be adjusted to use the available bandwidth at peak efficiency.

For most network applications, anything over 100ms latency is noticeable to your end users. Time sensitive applications such as VOIP or video teleconferencing suffer the worst experience when delay is introduced. Added to this is the impact of jitter. Jitter is the delay caused when packets travel alternative paths to the destination, and either arrive out of order, or with varying intervals between them. Applications such as e-mail that are bursty and not time sensitive do not feel the impact of latency to the same degree. How much of a problem is this for you today? One way to measure latency on your network is to use your carrier’s looking glass tools. A list of major looking glasses may be found at: ﻿http://www.traceroute.org/#Looking%20Glass.

When designing for latency in a WAN it is important to first understand the applications on the network. Also important is carrier technology you will be using. Frame Relay behaves differently from Ethernet, and your choices should take distance and intended applications into consideration. After the applications have been profiled, steps can be taken to mitigate the impact of network delay. In part 2 of this article, we will discuss methods of designing for latency mitigation.