From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 12 20:45:45 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC9216A400
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org)
Received: from conn-smtp.mc.mpls.visi.com (conn.mc.mpls.visi.com
	[208.42.156.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4209F13C448
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org)
Received: from mail.tcbug.org (mail.tcbug.org [208.42.70.163])
	by conn-smtp.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 63F388264; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:45:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [192.168.2.1])
	by mail.tcbug.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73EB341C0C;
	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:45:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:45:40 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <20070711174502.GB1435@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
	<NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBKENBCEAA.fbsd2@a1poweruser.com>
	<20070712161106.GB7989@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070712161106.GB7989@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1538468.E7QzZ4PhJn";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200707121545.43465.josh@tcbug.org>
Cc: fbsd2 <fbsd2@a1poweruser.com>, David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: 10Mbps versus 100Mbps Cable Modems
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:45:45 -0000

--nextPart1538468.E7QzZ4PhJn
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 12 July 2007, David Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:21:50AM -0400, fbsd2 wrote:
> > Am I missing some thing here?
> > I though 10Mbps/100Mbps ends up controlling the
> > max packet size traveling over the internet.
>
> Yes, you are missing something.
>
> > So if your using 10Mbps, you end up generating 10 separate
> > packets versus 1 packet at 100Mbps to move the same amount of
> > data.
>
> No, MTU stays the same. Jumbo packet support is popular for gigabit
> ethernet but MTU is generally limited to 1500 for external internet
> connections.


The ethernet port being 10mbps is only a problem if your being sold=20
more than 10mbps of bandwidth, in which case it would be a=20
bottleneck.  Since the cable provider is installing these modems it=20
would seem they aren't trying to sell higher link speeds than that.

=2D-=20
Thanks,

Josh Paetzel

--nextPart1538468.E7QzZ4PhJn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBGlpL3JvkB8SevrssRAis5AJsEFY0Tz/3Nr5dmlPUygtC7pCHuhgCfZX6P
DNQ3mkOwwAH7l/Sc0eoNDDM=
=Wr7+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1538468.E7QzZ4PhJn--