nanog mailing list archives
Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again?
From: Fred Baker <fred () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:24:59 -0700
CAIDA has been doing a lot of that, at least in the past. Last I asked them, which was quite a while back, they said that O(35%) of traffic in their samples was at the path MTU (which included 576 bytes for historical reasons), O(40%) was about the size of a TCP SYN or ACK, for reasons that are apparent if you think about common TCP implementations, and sizes were scattered more or less uniformly in between - last packet in a burst or transaction exchanges. From the numbers that Valdis posted the other day, it sounds like the logic remains about the same but the relevance of "576" has largely gone away.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Our network also shows peaks at the ethernet MTU (our MTU is higher than that) and the DNS packet size.so who has been tracking packet size distributions for some years and has published or could provide data? randy
Current thread:
- Avg. Packet Size - Again? Sean Hafeez (Jul 15)
- RE: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Darryl Dunkin (Jul 15)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Wayne E. Bouchard (Jul 16)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 15)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Glen Turner (Jul 16)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Randy Bush (Jul 16)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Jeff Kell (Jul 16)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Fred Baker (Jul 16)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? k claffy (Jul 23)
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Glen Turner (Jul 16)
- RE: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Darryl Dunkin (Jul 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Avg. Packet Size - Again? Scott Weeks (Jul 17)