Re: [LARTC] HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:13:08 -0700

Good recommendation. I read Jesper's thesis (well, okay, not ALL of it... but the juicy bits) and it looks like the difference between the overhead value that I expected to work (24) and the overhead value that actually worked (50) can be explained by the fact that I neglected to include the overhead incurred by bridged mode over ATM (RFC 2684/1483).

I would say "now I can sleep peacefully", but I just woke up a couple of hours ago... so I'll go for a run instead ;)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Furniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)

HTB uses IP packet length, to which you then need to add your fixed overhead - for pppoe that may include eth header + other have a look at jesper's table in his thesis.

http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ 

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Reply via email to