That was one of my points. We would want to substantiate both pps and bps sides for the overhead argument to work.
Now, I would reserve the viewpoint whether it is useful or not. :-) Cheers, Rajiv On Mar 28, 2019, at 5:18 PM, john leddy.net<http://leddy.net> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Joel, It would be good to factor in the ever growing amount of video on the Internet (and other large data transfer applications vs voice traffic). If larger MTU's could reliably be used, I think you would see a large amount of traffic starting to use something larger than 1500 byte Cells. Getting to a reliable PMTU mechanism would be a great way to drive efficiency. Use of larger packets should generate less TCP Ack traffic as well in general. I'm assuming the voice concern was around efficiency not about whether a voice application would work with the increased overhead of an extension header? John On March 28, 2019 at 11:51 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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. > > 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]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
