Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses

Tue Feb 3 19:12:58 UTC 2004

In a message written on Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 08:40:22PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> If you're paying for 40 byte packets anyway, there is no incentive to 
> ever go beyond 1500

With a 20 byte IP header:

A 40 byte packet is 50% data.

A 1500 byte packet is 98.7% data.

A 9000 byte packet is 99.7% data.

Anyone who pays by the bit should like large packets better than
small packets, as you pay for less "overhead" bandwidth.

Note that a 1500 byte IP in IP packet becomes 1520, and then gets
fragmented to 1500 and a 40 byte packet (20 data, 20 header).  That's
only 97.3% efficient, where as a single 1520 byte packet, if it
could be carried, is 98.7% efficient.

Obviously talking in smaller numbers, but to a lot of VPN vendors
1.4% improvement in bandwidth usage, bus usage, or avoiding the
path through the device that fragments a packet in the first place
is a big win.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040203/0a4ba43b/attachment.sig>