Working on IETF stuff: :) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ieprep-charter.html
This was in response to Scott's question on where Scott Bradner's been hiding. I imagine he's at the IETF meeting right now. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Working on IETF stuff: :) > > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ieprep-charter.html > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > Get in my head: > http://sar.dynu.com > > > ""s vermill"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Sam, > > > > These calculations are almost always based on the minimum - 64 bytes. > It's > > tempting to suspect the worst when you see that. But truth is, the larger > > the packet size, the more bytes you can generally move through a platform. > > The better studies will show you the pps for several packet sizes, ranging > > from 64 bytes to 1518. They will ideally show you the throughput for the > > various switching methods as well. > > > > Scott Bradner of Harvard fame is, well, famous for his thorough and > > independent testing of various internetworking products. However, I > haven't > > been able to locate his ftp site lately. Anyone know where he is hiding > > that these days? > > > > Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > sam sneed wrote: > > > > > > I noticed Cisco uses pps when they give their specs for > > > routers, firewalls, > > > etc. What is the assumed packet size when they come up with > > > these specs? I'm > > > planning on using 2 2621's in HSRP mode (getting default routes > > > via BGP) and > > > need to be able to support a constant 10 Mb/sec and would like > > > know if these > > > routers will do the trick. > > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39092&t=38956 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
