Yes, and no. If you are a given a limited resource (in this case, a physical port that can process no more than 1gbps for example) and your efficiency in transferring data over that port is not 100%, the provider itself is not to blame. Each and every protocol has limitations, and in this case we are talking about payload I guess. What the provider should say is: if you need "true" 20mbps, then instead you should contract 20mbps X 1+your-payload-process-loss.
A silly example would be this: you fill your gas tank with 12 gallons... After driving until it's empty, your engine only used an average of 6 gallons to actually move you from point A to point B. The other 6 were just wasted in form of heat. Do you ask for your money back at the gas station? Or maybe you invest in a hybrid car? Like I mentioned before, this is not unique to networking, it's a broader concern in the design of any system or process. On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Joe Greco <[email protected]> wrote: > > You can't just ignore protocol overhead (or any system's overhead). If an > > application requires X bits per second of actual payload, then your > system > > should be designed properly and take into account overhead, as well as > > failure rates, peak utilization hours, etc. This is valid for networking, > > automobile production, etc etc.. > > > Are you saying that the service provider should take into account overhead? > And report the amount of bandwidth available for payload? Even there we > have some wiggle room, but at least it is something the customer will be > able to work out (IP header overhead, etc). > > If not, I'm at a bit of a loss. As a customer, how do I identify that my > traffic is actually going over an ATM-over-MPLS-over-VPN-over-whatever- > other-bitrobbing-tech circuit and that I should only expect to see 60% of > the speed advertised? > > ... JG > -- > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] > then I > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail > spam(CNN) > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many > apples. >
