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

Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com> Sat, 10 August 1996 04:49 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa06261; 10 Aug 96 0:49 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06257; 10 Aug 96 0:49 EDT
Received: from murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01442; 10 Aug 96 0:49 EDT
Received: from mailing-list by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) id OAA15395; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:41:45 +1000
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) with SMTP id OAA15323; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:23:29 +1000
Received: from home.partan.com by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id EA15448; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 14:23:27 +1000 (from asp@partan.com)
Received: (from asp@localhost) by home.partan.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11136; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:23:19 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com>
Message-Id: <199608100423.AAA11136@home.partan.com>
Subject: Re: Comparing an old flow snapshot with some packet size data
To: "Kent W. England" <kwe@6sigmanets.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: big-internet@munnari.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960809003355.00703fe4@mail.cts.com> from "Kent W. England" at Aug 8, 96 05:33:55 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 394
Precedence: bulk

> Is there any performance reason, such as buffer memory, that is
> constrained to the point where a 10k MTU couldn't be supported?

The router folks can probably speak better to this than I can, but
with a limited amout of memory in the routers, you probably want
a larger number of smaller buffers than a fewer number of larger
buffers - thus a smaller MTU.
	--asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)