There's another variable. Noise, manifested in bit errors, is about three orders of magnitude greater in RF than in wireline. The larger the packet, the larger the retransmission when it fails the CRC check. If you must, there are yet more variables such as the amount of FEC. The more FEC, the fewer bit errors, but the FEC comes at a cost in capacity.
Multivariable optimization problem. And some of the variables change from moment to moment. On Wed, 2016-07-06 at 15:20 -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > > > Hey Dino, > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the header size issue, one of the complaints I've made about > > > > ICN/CCN etc. and 5G is the increased header sizes and the > > > > impact that this has on the most expensive resource (by a wide > > > > margin), the RF spectrum. > > > > > > So you are saying large packets would have the same disadvanage. > > > Therefore, small headers on small payloads is the most optimal > > > design space? > > Not sure how that follows ;) I'm saying either compress or provide > > an advantage to the RF link too, or both, but doing neither would > > be a hard sell. Larger packet sizes of course reduce the relative > > header tax so bigger is actually better I suppose. > More headers mean larger packets. Less headers with multiple packets > in a super-packet means larger packets. So the negative effect is the > same. > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > 5gangip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
