Hi Joel, Is your hidden message to express that neither TCP nor UDP with voice app should use IPv6 at all as overhead is just too big even without additional extension headers ?
Best, R. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 16:44 Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
