brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr9.145024.14464@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <28077:Apr700:18:3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >The big question: Can they still do it with 2-byte packets? > The bigger question: why is IRC still in the subject when it seems to > average 80 byte packets? You're right; I've edited the subject line appropriately. Chris reports that (relatively) new routers on the Internet run fast enough that, in at least one case, a site achieved essentially full Ethernet throughput via TCP over a wide-area link. What percentage of this performance can it get with 2-byte packets? 20-byte packets? 200-byte packets, about the largest you'll ever see on IRC? After all, if IRC really is taking only 1.5% of total NSFNET resources, I shouldn't be claiming that it takes twice as much. ---Dan