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

From: Nathan Ward (no email)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 20:07:13 EDT

  • Next message: Nathan Ward: "Re: [NANOG] OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues"

    On 6/05/2008, at 8:02 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
    > Of course not. Like I said, as an average end-user with 10 Mbps you
    > get to send a maximum of 2500 packets per second. That's plenty to do
    > VoIP, set up TCP sessions or do IM. You just don't get to send the
    > full 10 Mbps at this size.

    Hmm, I see value in that.

    But, good luck trying to convince customers to take a pps limitation
    in addition to a Mbps limitation, whether they ever exceed that pps or
    not. You /might/ convince them to take a pps limitation only - but if
    they want to do 30Mbit (ie 2500pps @ 1500b) then your product needs to
    support that.

    Maybe you just start calling "10Mbps" "10Mbps, assuming a 500b average
    packet size."

    Anyway, nice idea in theory - putting more real world limitations in
    to sold product limitations - but I don't see it working out with
    marketing people, etc. unless someone has been doing it for years
    already. It'd be good if the world were all engineers though, huh?

    --
    Nathan Ward
    _______________________________________________
    NANOG mailing list
    http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
    

  • Next message: Nathan Ward: "Re: [NANOG] OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD