That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion control. Goodput on a single TCP flow is always less than link bandwidth, regardless of the link.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, keith tokash <ktok...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the > *percentage* of a circuit's bandwidth. For example if you order a 20Mb site > to site circuit and iperf shows 17Mb. Well ... that's 15% off, which sounds > hefty, but I'm not sure what's realistic to expect. > > And beyond expectations, I'm wondering if there's a threshold that industry > movers/shakers generally yell at their vendor for going below, and try to get > a refund or move the link to a new port/box. > > > > >> To: ktok...@hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee? >> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu >> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:02:53 -0400 >> CC: nanog@nanog.org >> >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:46 -0700, keith tokash said: >> >> > Is there an industry standard regarding how much bandwidth an >> > inter-carrier circuit should guarantee? >> >> How are you going to come up with a standard that covers both the uplink from >> Billy-Bob's Bait, Fish, Tackle, and Wifi, where a fractional gigabit may be >> plenty, and the size pipes that got clogged in the recent Netflix network >> neutrality kerfluffle? >> >> And where your PoPs are (and how many) matters as well - if you have a >> peering >> agreement with another carrier, and you exchange 35Gbits/sec of traffic, the >> bandwidth at each peer point will depend on whether you peer at one location, >> or 5, or 7, or 15..... >> >
