From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Munck Steenholdt <tmus@tmus.dk>
Subject: Re: kilobit=1000bit
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:39:00 +0100
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <40391364.6090400@tmus.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

alex@pilosoft.com wrote:
> While trying to investigate mysterios packet loss on a link limited by tc
> to its theoretical capacity, I realized that tc (and some other tools)  
> treat kilobit as 1024 bits per second. This is manifestly incorrect, as it
> is pretty much standard for equipment specifications to be given as 1000
> bit per second=kilobit.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> * Ethernet (10BaseT)  is driven by 10Mhz (as in 10 million oscillations 
> per second:) clock, resulting in 10 million bits per second capacity.
> 
> * Ethernet (100BaseT) is driven by 125Mhz clock and uses 4B/5B encoding 
> resulting in 100 million bits per second capacity.
> 
> * 56k modem is (details are too long) but it results in 56000 bits/second.
> 
> 
> I can't think of any networking technology that rates the capacity in 1024 
> bits/second = kilobit.
> 
> This may be a just a heads-up to those unaware, but, it would be nice to 
> change tc to use correct multipliers (possibly with a switch to revert to 
> old behavior).
> 
> 
> -alex
> 

There is an interesting description of the "right" way to do this on
this page: http://www.romulus2.com/articles/guides/misc/bitsbytes.shtml

Thomas