nanog mailing list archives
Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
From: Tony Li <tli () jnx com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:24:46 -0800 (PST)
I believe you're misinterpreting the numbers. The raw data for those numbers (if they're the same ones I'm thinking of) I doubt it, it's relatively new data. Like last Thursday. ;-) indicate that 9% of the packets had a 512 byte *payload*. I already subtracted off the 40 bytes for the headers. I meant MSS. You're correct, of course, that the percentage of packets at that size does not directly reflect the percentage of hosts with that as an MSS. However, the spikes in the packet percentages are clearly due to hosts using that MSS. You would otherwise expect to see a "smooth" distribution across packet sizes, which is not at ALL what's happening. One of my main findings is that independently-written (i.e., non-BSD-derived) TCP's are much more likely to have serious performance and congestion problems. Wow. Imagine that. ;-) Tony - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses, (continued)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Paul A Vixie (Jan 14)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Michael Dillon (Jan 14)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Paul A Vixie (Jan 14)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Tony Li (Jan 13)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Michael Dillon (Jan 13)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Tony Li (Jan 13)
- 30%, huh? (Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses ) Paul A Vixie (Jan 13)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Tony Li (Jan 13)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Howard C. Berkowitz (Jan 14)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Tony Li (Jan 14)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Hank Nussbacher (Jan 13)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Barry Shein (Jan 15)
- Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses Craig Nordin (Jan 15)