JL> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:54:24 -0500 JL> From: Jeffrey Lyon JL> FWIW, I'm primarily concerned about testing PPS loads and not brute JL> force bandwidth. Which underscores my point: <x> bps with minimally-sized packets is even higher pps than <x> bps with "normal"-sized packets, for any non-minimal value of "normal". Thus, the potential for breaking something that scales based on pps instead of bps _increases_ under such testing. I've not [yet] seen an AUP that reads "customer shall maintain a minimum packet size of 400 bytes (combined IP header and payload) averaged over a moving one-hour window". ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.