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
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
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 by
2002 12:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cisco's pps claims [7:38956]
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 defaul
Sam,
I think the question is: what is your average packet size? Using
process or fast switching I should think that the packet size is almost
irrelevant to the router. I have benchmarked many PCs and NICs running
certain routing software. On a PCI bus PC the pps difference between 64
and 1518 o
Vendors usually quote the packets per second rate based on 64-byte packets
because that makes the number look more impressive (i.e. larger)! The 2661
router may be able to keep pace at "wire speed" on 10-Mbps Ethernet.
(You may still have a bottleneck if your outgoing WAN isn't that fast, but
""the routing decision consumes the bulk of the CPU
bandwidth, shovelling the rest of the packet through
is low-overhead.""
say a router connects a between ethernet and Frame
Relay or between two dissimilar Layer2 networks. Then
the router would be stripping off one networks' layer2
frame and rep
I don't really know what the overhead of that specific stuff is, but
it's all part of a packet coming up the stack to the routing layer, and
it has to be done per packet, so packet size is irrelevant to that.
Using traditional routing techniques such as process or fast switching,
the packet will
At 11:57 PM 3/20/02, John Green wrote:
>""the routing decision consumes the bulk of the CPU
>bandwidth, shovelling the rest of the packet through
>is low-overhead.""
>
>say a router connects a between ethernet and Frame
>Relay or between two dissimilar Layer2 networks. Then
>the router would be st
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]...
>
The Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) group sounds very interesting
and important. Thanks for letting us know about it (in a back-handed way. ;-)
Priscilla
At 05:01 PM 3/21/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>Working on IETF stuff: :)
>
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ieprep-charter.html
All,
I agree that the industry has settled on pps. And yes, the smaller the
packet size the greater the number appears. However, if you look at the
ratio of header to payload, smaller packet sizes seem to result in lower
throughput as measured in bits or bytes. A larger packet size has a lower
At 12:01 PM 3/22/02, s vermill wrote:
>All,
>
>I agree that the industry has settled on pps.
Router and switch vendors use ppp to advertise throughput measurements of
packets through their devices. This is just one minor aspect of network
performance.
> And yes, the smaller the
>packet size t
At 03:30 PM 3/22/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>At 12:01 PM 3/22/02, s vermill wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I agree that the industry has settled on pps.
>
>Router and switch vendors use ppp to advertise throughput measurements of
>packets through their devices.
That should say pps! ;-)
>This is jus
Priscilla,
No problem specifically. I think we all face a customer who doesn't really
understand this stuff - but thinks they have it down perfectly. So I get
questions like: "can that 3620 handle a full T3?" The answer, of course,
is "it depends" (or perhaps the optimum response would be: "a
Darn, and I was just getting ready to ask if that was packets per pound!
Pound of what? I leave that to your imagination.
Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI
Community College of Southern Nevada
Cisco ATC/Regional Networking Academy
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> At 03:30 PM 3/22/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wr
>At 03:30 PM 3/22/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>>At 12:01 PM 3/22/02, s vermill wrote:
>> >All,
>> >
> > >I agree that the industry has settled on pps.
Take a look at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html.
BMWG is the IETF group that sets objective criteria for testing,
alt
At 04:43 PM 3/22/02, s vermill wrote:
>3640 w/ FE to HSSI
>
>size: type: switching: performanc:
>
>64 Unidirectional Fast40,500 pps 20.7 Mbps
>128 Unidirectional Fast40,000 pps 41.0 Mbps
>256 Unidirectional Fast22,000 pps 45.0 Mbps
>512
18 matches
Mail list logo
