Hi Toke,
On Jun 16, 2013, at 21:36 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote:
> Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Well, that result is mildly puzzling. netperf-wrapper -6 throughout?
>> no ipv4?
>
> There's some ipv4 traffic in the background. Dunno exactly how much.
>
>> You are on a dsl line, too? There has been some fixes to the overhead
>> issue that have landed but encapsulation atm is still borked (you
>> using atm?)
>
> Yeah. I'm on VDSL. No idea what encapsulation (and can't access my
> isp-provided router since that is in bridge mode).
As far as I can tell at least VDSL typically means VDSL2 and that
probably means PTM instead of ATM. In essence this means you do not have to
deal with ATMs 48 payload bytes per 53 byte cell transport inefficiencies. So
all you need to deal with is per packet overhead. Then again I am sure you
probably know that already. (Sidenote, as far as I understand (so not very far)
using ATM for DSL connections with POTS service in the lower frequency range
never made much sense at all, the 5 byte ATM header typically was constant and
by that just ballast and the 48 byte quantization on the last mile never came
with any benefits, but I digress)
Best
Sebastian
>
> -Toke
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
