-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, John Jannotti hath spake thusly:
> So, roughly speaking a 1% (Ethernet frame) loss rate becomes a 2% (IP
> packet) loss rate.  TCP gets unhappy quickly as loss rate climbs.
> 
> Matching your IP packet size to the true MTU size of the path gets you down
> to the true loss rate, and TCP works better.

Sure, but this only is useful for unreliable connections (i.e.
connections with considerable packet loss).  Most traffic on most LANs
stays on the LAN.  It's not terribly practical to degrade local
network performance to counteract the effects of packet loss unless
most of your traffic is out to the Internet.  The practical usefulness
of this seems rather limited to me...  I suppose technically, you're
solving a problem; but you're only trading it for a different one.
Which in most cases will be more detrimental than the problem you
solved.


- -- 
Derek Martin               ddm@pizzashack.org    
- ---------------------------------------------
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8z2scdjdlQoHP510RAqwHAJwIOH+QiJD24+K7+a9yfbZbd2S7YACgsrJx
PqWrahtHhekqSp4nCMUCanM=
=5r1q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----