Hi, On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:55:48AM -0700, bored to death wrote: > the document you pointed out > (http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf) > was good for the start, thank you. but it was very limited. > it just had the result for switching of 64Byte frame packets, not any static > or > dynamic routing results nor any results about other frame sizes.
"static" or "dynamic" routing doesn't have any influence on forwarding
performance (unless you have major churn and the router spends too many
cycles on rebuilding the FIB).
> as i know, the normal frame size of ordinary networks are 1500Bytes which is
> very bigger than 64Byte.
64byte is worst-case performance. So for larger packets, the performance
is better.
1500 byte is *maximum* frame size. On a normal network, the *average*
packet size will be much lower - think of TCP transfers: 1500 byte in
one direction, and 40 byte ACKs (padded to 64) in the other direction.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpD3OJQqVBs4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
