Re: Comparing an old flow snapshot with some packet size data

Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com> Sat, 10 August 1996 04:51 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa06279; 10 Aug 96 0:51 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06275; 10 Aug 96 0:51 EDT
Received: from murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01466; 10 Aug 96 0:51 EDT
Received: from mailing-list by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) id OAA15419; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:44:34 +1000
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) with SMTP id OAA15315; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:21:04 +1000
Received: from home.partan.com by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id EA06646; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:20:57 +1000 (from asp@partan.com)
Received: (from asp@localhost) by home.partan.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11116; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:20:47 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com>
Message-Id: <199608100420.AAA11116@home.partan.com>
Subject: Re: Comparing an old flow snapshot with some packet size data
To: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: big-internet@munnari.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <9608090840.AA04143@dxcoms.cern.ch> from "Brian Carpenter CERN-CN" at Aug 9, 96 10:40:48 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 680
Precedence: bulk

> So I'd hazard a guess that it is not time to think of going
> above 1500.

Most large backbones today are probably already running at 4470 -
with FDDI for the interexchanges and hub LANs, and T3/Hssi for
their point-to-point links.

The question is, if you were designing a backbone today, what would
you use for your hub LANs?  Fddi?  Or 100baseT?  100baseT is probably
going to be a lot cheaper (it looks like there is going to be a
*lot* of it made), but its MTU is 1500.

Can you get by with this?  Or do you really need to invest in LANs
that do 4470?

Any high performance internet folks out there?  What would you do
(or want us to do)?
	--asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)