Smaller packets would never be more efficient at delivering a given
payload. If I need to move a 1GB file, it will always be more efficient
to move it with larger packets, regardless of header compression.
So I can't gain efficiency by intentionally using smaller packets. I
might have moved more bits per second, but only because I created more
bits worth of headers. I still moved a 1GB file and it took the same
amount of time (or very nearly). In this case the header compression is
not helping much.
Some data uses small packet sizes by it's nature. Since a VoIP payload
is already broken up into small chunks, it's already inefficient due to
having many more headers than the 1GB file transfer. In this case, I do
gain efficiency with header compression. If I was using the link to
carry nothing by VoIP, I should be able to carry more concurrent calls
with header compression than without.
Most of us aren't doing that, so we won't get the theoretical 750mbps in
real life, but there should be *some* benefit to header compression on
anybody's network.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2/15/2017 5:52:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 18GHz licensed
Assume the endpoints are the same and that header compression is
equally effective on both packet sizes.
Now explain how smaller packets are more efficient.
On Feb 15, 2017 12:05 PM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote:
You're forgetting about the header compression.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:41:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 18GHz licensed
Huh? More packets = more overhead. Less packets = less overhead.
On Feb 15, 2017 10:37 AM, "Jon Langeler" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think you have those numbers flipped. It does more speed with small
packets.
Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.
On Feb 15, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
At 1024QAM it does 761Mbps LG packets and 486Mbps SM packets. When
I ran TCP speed tests on the link I got 750Mbps though.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]>
wrote:
No, it is 1024.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Josh Luthman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is that 2048, Jeremy?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:%28937%29%20552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:%28937%29%20552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]>
wrote:
Our 6GHz Trango link does 750Mbps FDX on a 60MHz channel width.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Rory Conaway
<[email protected]> wrote:
No but it’s the middle of Phoenix, I’d be surprised if it was.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Broadwick - Lists
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:06 AM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 18GHz licensed
Did you check and see if there is a 60MHz channel available in
6GHz Rory?
Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 <tel:%28312%29%20205-2519> Office
574-220-7826 <tel:%28574%29%20220-7826> Cell
[email protected]
On Feb 15, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Rory Conaway
<[email protected]> wrote:
Will the Cambium 820 support that?
Rory
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George
Skorup
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 18GHz licensed
IIRC, there are 10 channel pairs on the 40MHz channel plan for
18GHz.
You could always do 2+0 if there are two channels available on
your proposed path.
On 2/15/2017 12:06 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
12 miles. Needs 4' dishes minimum but I didn't ask about both
polarities. Thanks.
Rory
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trey
Scarborough
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 18GHz licensed
Hmm Xpic if you can get 40mhz on H and V. are you trying to
make this
go
30 miles though...
On 2/14/2017 10:17 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
I have a link where only 40MHz is available. What would my
best
option be to get more than 500Mbps out of it? 2048QAM is
limited to 347Mbps.
*Rory Conaway **� Triad Wireless �**CEO*
*4226 S. 37^th Street � Phoenix � AZ 85040*
*602-426-0542 <tel:%28602%29%20426-0542>*
*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>*
*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
* *
�The successful man is the one who finds out what is the
matter
with his business before his competitors do.� - Roy L. Smith
