From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sascha Reissner" Subject: Re: Setting and Routing on the TOS Source (SRC) and Destination (DST) Bits Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:15:15 +0200 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <001d01c26242$79813670$026410ac@honor> References: <20020922082118.EQR13996.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@there> <0c0601c2623c$f82fd7c0$c6b22543@repligate> <20020922134852.PSNX6699.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@there> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Antony Stone , netfilter@lists.netfilter.org From: "Antony Stone" > On Sunday 22 September 2002 2:35 pm, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > Have you ever calculated how much bandwidth is wasted each year > > with 4 of the 160 bits in every packet as useless ? > > Actually, it's 4 of every 160 bits in the *header* - there's up to another > 1500 *bytes* (on ethernet) of body in the packet as well, so the wasted > bandwidth varies from 4/160 = 2.5% for empty packets, to 4/12160 = 0.03% for > full ones. > > Most people are going to have full packets in one direction (the direction > that's got saturated bandwidth), and empty ACK packets in the other direction > (which has oodles of bandwidth to spare because all the packets are empty). > > Therefore I think 0.03% wasted bandwidth on a full link, and 2.5% wasted on a > virtually idle link are very acceptable. > > Antony. i guess 1 more offtopic mails like this compensates all "useless header overhead" per user for a year.