i was thinking about the case for interleaving for voice (which is the
most common reason to do mlppp fragmentation). at speeds above 768k,
latency is low enough, that you don't need to enable fragmentation.
you can still enable it, but the benefits it gets you is minimal.
regards
.siva
>
> > however the difference becomes less important with links
> > faster then 768k,
> > as there is no reason to do multilink fragmentation, and multilink
> > fragmentation should be disabled in this case.
> >
> > regards
> > .siva
> >
>
> Siva,
>
> How did you arrive at this assertion? Fragmentation _should_ be orthogonal
> to link speed. There is nothing in RFC 1990 to indicate that fragmentation
> functionality be dependent on link speed. Are you suggesting that at higher
> bit rates (assuming a standard Internet packet size distribution) the MLPPP
> engine has difficulty sending and receiving fragments?
>
> regards,
> ./chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:29 EDT