nanog mailing list archives

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet


From: Gian Constantine <constantinegi () corp earthlink net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:03:25 -0400

I did a rough, top-of-the-head, with ~60 bytes header (ETH, IP, TCP) into 1500 and 4470 (a mistake, on my part, not to use 9216).

I still think the cost outweighs the gain, though there are some reasonable arguments for the increase.

Gian Anthony Constantine


On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:


On (2007-04-12 16:28 +0200), Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

On 12-apr-2007, at 16:04, Gian Constantine wrote:

I agree. The throughput gains are small. You're talking about a
difference between a 4% header overhead versus a 1% header overhead
(for TCP).

6% including ethernet overhead and assuming the very common TCP
timestamp option.

Out of curiosity how is this calculated?
[ytti () ytti fi ~]% echo "1450/(1+7+6+6+2+1500+4+12)*100"|bc -l
94.27828348504551365400
[ytti () ytti fi ~]% echo "8950/(1+7+6+6+2+9000+4+12)*100"|bc -l
99.02633325957070148200
[ytti () ytti fi ~]%

I calculated less than 5% from 1500 to 9000, with ethernet and
adding TCP timestamp. What did I miss?

Or compared without tcp timestamp and 1500 to 4470.
[ytti () ytti fi ~]% echo "1460/(1+7+6+6+2+1500+4+12)*100"|bc -l
94.92847854356306892000
[ytti () ytti fi ~]% echo "4410/(1+7+6+6+2+4470+4+12)*100"|bc -l
97.82608695652173913000

Less than 3%.

However, I don't think it's relevant if it's 1% or 10%, bigger
benefit would be to give 1500 end-to-end, even with eg. ipsec
to the office.

--
  ++ytti


Current thread: