Hi,
If it was me I wouild charge by the packet then instist everybody used only telnet or
restict packet sizes to 100 bytes.
Sorry,
Packets can contain from a few bytes (payload) to a lot of bytes (payload). A telnet
session transmitting each character individually gives a large number of packets with
few bytes. An FTP session with large packets gives a few number of packets with a
large number of bytes.
Why does it matter for sniffing purposes. The management of a network (the slowing
down or whatever) might be due to the bandwith being swallowed up by the bytes on a
network or it could be due the the having to handle the number of packets on a
network. Being able to compare the two could assist in making choices as to what sort
of queuing to use or how best to manipulate traffic.
Just some thoughts and ramblings,
Teunis
Hobart, Tasmania
Australia
On Monday, February 05, 2001 at 09:56:16 AM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> > Everyone
> >
> > I am just wondering why IP Accounting and Sniffers us both Packet and Byte
> >counters? Can someone explain this to me, why they use both and what are the
> >difference's or seen me to a website?
> >
> >Brian
>
>
> At the most basic, byte statistics tend to reflect limitations of
> bandwidth or congestion of the medium. Packet statistics tend to
> reflect limitations of forwarding devices (e.g., lookup
> speeds)--their ability to handle headers.
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
www.tasmail.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
