Re: [NANOG] Larger packets to save power, was: Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

From: Mike Fedyk (no email)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 15:56:38 EDT

  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "Re: [NANOG] Larger packets to save power, was: Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ?"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:]
    > think of is DoS attacks. But that can be solved by only allowing end-
    > users to send an average packet size of 500 (or 250, or whatever)
    > bytes. So if you have a 10 Mbps connection you don't get to
    > send 14000
    > 64-byte packets per second, but a maximum of 2500 packets per
    > second.
    > So with 64-byte packets you only get to use 1.25 Mbps.

    You have just cut out the VoIP industry, TCP setup, IM or most types of
    real-time services on the Internet.

    > PS. Am I the only one who is annoyed by the reduction in usable
    > subject space by the superfluous [NANOG]?
    >

    Yes you are the only one. ;)

    _______________________________________________
    NANOG mailing list

    http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog


  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "Re: [NANOG] Larger packets to save power, was: Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD