nanog mailing list archives
Re: Proving Gig Speed
From: Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:07:53 -0400
Which is why we over provision by 10%.
On Jul 17, 2018, at 07:51, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:On 16/Jul/18 20:08, Jared Mauch wrote: This means a 920Mb/s link may actually be 100% once you add back in ethernet framing. Remind folks that they are seeing the TCP/UDP throughput and there is ethernet + IP headers involved.But you sold me 1Gbps. Stop stiffing me my 80Mbps :-)... Mark.
Current thread:
- Proving Gig Speed Chris Gross (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Dan White (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Jared Mauch (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Matt Hoppes (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Matt Hoppes (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 17)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 18)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Jared Mauch (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Dan White (Jul 16)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Radu-Adrian Feurdean (Jul 22)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mark Tinka (Jul 22)
- Re: Proving Gig Speed Mike Hammett (Jul 22)