Re: HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)

["Chris Bennett" <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Good recommendation.  I read Jesper's thesis (well, okay, not ALL of it... 
but the juicy bits) and it looks like the difference between the overhead 
value that I expected to work (24) and the overhead value that actually 
worked (50) can be explained by the fact that I neglected to include the 
overhead incurred by bridged mode over ATM (RFC 2684/1483).

I would say "now I can sleep peacefully", but I just woke up a couple of 
hours ago... so I'll go for a run instead ;)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Furniss" <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Chris Bennett" <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re:  HTB ATM MPU OVERHEAD (without any patching)

> HTB uses IP packet length, to which you then need to add your fixed 
> overhead - for pppoe that may include eth header + other have a look at 
> jesper's table in his thesis.
>
> http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc