The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <20030224003710.O14037@kummer.juniper.net>, Kireeti Kompella writes:
> Hi Curtis,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> > I think the SPs should speak as to whether the bandwidth inefficiency
> > of 30 byte payloads or the potential to lose a packet with a 200 byte
> > is a greater problem.
> 
> Two questions (more probably to others than to you):
> a) what is the relative bandwidth of voice?
>    (i.e., if voice accounts for <10% of a link's capacity, it
>    may not be worth worrying about even a 100% overhead); and
> b) if a 30 byte voice packet got dropped, would you expect that
>    6 other voice packets that were temporally close would escape
>    the hatchet?  I.e., how big really is the penalty of a 200 byte
>    packet?
> 
> Kireeti.


I'm looking forward to seeing a review of the requirements doc.
Actually not really.  But it will be more sane than the current
requirements moving target.

Curtis