RE: Comments on WIMP and MTU Handling

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

Hi Bill,

> > i mean, if you present a reduced mtu to the upper layers, but
> the additional
> > header is not included, you are actually sending less bytes, which means
> > that you are consuming less bandwidth, so others can use it.
>
> huh?
>
> if you shrink the MTU, you're putting more of your available link
> capacity into packet headers because you now need more packets to
> carry a given payload.

I agree with you.

There are three different scenarios, IMHO.

The best case, the complete MTU is presented to the upper layer, so it can
be used complete
The second case, is when a reduced MTU is presented but the additional
header is not included, so less bytes are transmited.
The worst case is when a reduced MTU is presented and the header is included
in the packet.

My point was about that the second and the third are different and that the
second case was better than the third one.

Is this correct?

Regards, marcelo

>
> 					- Bill
>
>