nanog mailing list archives
Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2
From: jon () branch com (Jon Zeeff)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:47:19 -0400 (EDT)
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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- tilting at windmills discussion 2 Jerry Scharf (Jun 18)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Dorian Kim (Jun 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Tim Salo (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Jon Zeeff (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Justin W. Newton (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Jerry Scharf (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Vadim Antonov (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Vadim Antonov (Jun 19)
- Re: tilting at windmills discussion 2 Dorian Kim (Jun 19)