Header overhead percentage is fairly useless alone. A real-world comparison 
would need take into account the speed of a given connection.

- Mark


On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Rémi Després wrote:

> 
> Wojciech,
> 
> IPv4-header computations of draft-dec-stateless-4v6-02 are AFAIK too much in 
> favor of translation (4v6T) vs encapsulation (4V6E). 
> 
> The draft has:   
>   +------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
>   | Item                   | 4V6 Translation    | 4V6 Mapped Tunnel   |
>   |                        | mode               | Mode                |
>   +------------------------+-------- ... -------+---------------------+
>   | Overhead in relation   | a) 0% b) 0%        | a) 4.36% b) 1.71%   |
>   | to average payload of  |                    |                     |
>   | a) ~550 bytes b) 1400  |                    |                     |
>   | bytes).                |                    |                     |
>   | ------------------     | ------------------ | ------------------  |
> 
> An IPv4 packet having a 550 B payload is 570 B long (ignoring possible IPv4 
> options):
> - 4V6T adds 20 B (3.5 %).
> - 4V6E adds 40 B, (7.0 %).  
> An IPv4 packet having a 1400 B payload is 1420 B long (at least)
> - Translation adds 20/1420 = 1,4 %
> - Encapsulation adds 40/1420 = 2,8 %
> 
> This gives:
>   | ------------------     | ------------------ | ------------------  |
>   | Overhead in relation   | a) 3.5% b) 1.4%    | a) 7% b) 2.8%       |
>   | to average payload of  |                    |                     |
>   | a) ~550 bytes b) 1400  |                    |                     |
>   | bytes).                |                    |                     |
>   | ------------------     | ------------------ | ------------------  |
> 
> In addition, a complete comparison should take in consideration the length of 
> layer-2 headers, as well as that of the physical preambles if any. This leads 
> to even less different overhead ratios.
> 
> Also, 4V6 devices can be expected to soon have an increasing part of their 
> traffic in IPv6. With this, the 4V6 overhead in % will soon decrease 
> accordingly. 
> 
> Conclusion: this line of the table deals with a difference that, although it 
> is real, is not significant compared to other considerations (e2e 
> transparency is one that deserves a separate discussion).
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to