Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2
In a similar vein, something to think about:
IP packet size distribution (970780293 total packets): 1-32 64 96 128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384 416 448 480 .000 .497 .094 .013 .009 .006 .007 .010 .010 .014 .004 .005 .002 .002 .002 ^^^^ 512 544 576 1024 1536 2048 2560 3072 3584 4096 4608 .004 .002 .189 .000 .069 .053 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Collected at a private interconnect between CICNet, OARnet and OSU. over a period of a week or so.
It would be really interesting if you could expand the range of 32 to 64 byte packets to display in one byte increments. Then we could try to guess: o How many packets are nothing but TCP and IP headers? o How many packets appear to be TCP/IP headers with one byte of data? o How many of these packets, with some sort of header compression scheme, could fit in one ATM cell? o Etc., etc. -tjs
In a similar vein, something to think about:
IP packet size distribution (970780293 total packets): 1-32 64 96 128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384 416 448 480 .000 .497 .094 .013 .009 .006 .007 .010 .010 .014 .004 .005 .002 .002 .002 ^^^^ 512 544 576 1024 1536 2048 2560 3072 3584 4096 4608 .004 .002 .189 .000 .069 .053 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Ah, finally some data pertaining to the "it's really important that interconnects support large mtus" discussion.
participants (2)
-
jon@branch.com
-
salo@msc.edu