North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: MTU of the Internet?
Steve Carter writes... > Theory tells me that for both types of traffic it is probably better, > for response times sake, to have an asymetrical MTU (send = smaller, > receive = bigger from the clients perspective). Servers set big MTU's, > clients set their's smaller. > > Irrespective of your MTU size, the file or web page, etc. size is always > going to be the same, therefore, if you set a smaller MTU at the server > or within the network, fragmentation occurs, meaning greater overhead > for a file of a given size and due to this the end station will have to > reconstitute the data stream out of smaller packets, meaning more CPU > overhead. I still think there has to be some kind of better approach to what it is we are doing when we have such extreme ranges of bandwidth capacity and the resultant extremes of optimal MTU. One idea I'm thinking of, and I may well even give it a try between a couple of Linux boxes over a phone line, is what I call "cell multiplexed PPP". Basically this would be a channelized stream that can parallel multiple packets. Small ones can come right through while the big ones are still working. That may only help minimally for parallelizing image loading unless there is added logic that detects the TCP ports and ensures that only one port at a time is taking up a channel. -- Phil Howard | email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com phil | firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org at | email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com milepost | firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org dot | email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com com | firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org