From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam James Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:10:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Patch to allow for the ATM "cell tax" Message-Id: <20060314021056.6de68b39@heliosphan.kernelpanic.co.uk> List-Id: References: <1141284603.10264.168.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> In-Reply-To: <1141284603.10264.168.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:26:12 +1000 Russell Stuart wrote: > The complete table, for the _outbound_ direction going > over an Ethernet link is: > > PPPoA + VC/Mux: tc class add htb … overhead -8 atm > PPPoA + VC/LLC: tc class add htb … overhead 4 atm > PPPoE + VC/Mux: tc class add htb … overhead 20 atm > PPPoE + VC/LLC: tc class add htb … overhead 28 atm > > The complete table for incoming traffic on the IMQ > device, regardless of the type of connection, is: > > PPPoA + VC/Mux: tc class add htb … overhead 10 atm > PPPoA + VC/LLC: tc class add htb … overhead 18 atm > PPPoE + VC/Mux: tc class add htb … overhead 34 atm > PPPoE + VC/LLC: tc class add htb … overhead 42 atm Why is the PPPoA VC/Mux overhead for outbound traffic 6 octets and 10 octets for inbound? My interpretation of RFC 2364 is that the AAL5 footer for VC multiplexed PPPoA is 8 octets, meaning a -4 overhead on incoming traffic. What am I missing? _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc