One needs to be very careful about packet size reasoning.
For TCP, something like 1/3 of all packets are tiny (acks). A lot less
than 1/3 of the bytes are in tiny packets :-)
For voice traffic, almost all packets are small.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/28/19 4:36 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Hi Ron,
Very Interesting idea that you presented during SPRING session today. Seems
useful.
Two comments/clarification -
1. One of the slides indicated that small packet size on the Internet was ~500B
and calculated ~10% due to Routing EH overhead accordingly. Of course, if we
look at mid packet size (800-1000B) or large packet size (1000~1400B), then the
overhead would be a lot less.
We should also look at the % mix of small packets vs mid vs large size to calculate
the impact. If mid to large packets were dominant (say, as much as >70% given
>80% of traffic is video (ABR etc) per the latest VNI studies ), then the overhead
impact due to non-compressed SID usage on the traffic would be even less over all.
2. Also, what % of savings do we get by using compressed RH vs non-compressed
RH ? 24B vs 64B per packet !!
Cheers,
Rajiv
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
