Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:26:55 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= <olivier@cochard.me> To: Norbert Aschendorff <norbert.aschendorff@yahoo.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 Ethernet Performance Message-ID: <CA%2Bq%2BTcopbjXFMwEY2Y5F3xZDs8poTAWVSKFexgWp-MjvTFoV2A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de> References: <503CE60F.8040007@yahoo.de> <loom.20120829T133814-120@post.gmane.org> <503E5C14.9090001@yahoo.de> <CA%2Bq%2BTcpkgecViB%2B9ze=UX7=UYq1YKkN690X6XAzYcpcrdZtO2w@mail.gmail.com> <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Norbert Aschendorff <norbert.aschendorff@yahoo.de> wrote: > I tested it using tcpdump: http://nopaste.info/9394068f54_nl.html > The length field says for each packet 1408 bytes, so that should be OK. > TCP the packet size is OK (MSS negociated), it's in IPv6 UDP mode that iperf have a problem with the default packet size: "iperf -V -u -c desthost" "tcpdump host desthost" output (notice the frag and default length): 00:08:33.256304 IP6 (flowlabel 0x09036, hlim 64, next-header Fragment (44) payload length: 1440) 2001:db8::1 > 2001:db8::2: frag (0x3c8d768a:0|1432) 39065 > commplex-link: UDP, length 1470 00:08:33.256307 IP6 (flowlabel 0x09036, hlim 64, next-header Fragment (44) payload length: 54) 2001:db8::1 > 2001:db8::2: frag (0x3c8d768a:1432|46) 00:08:33.256317 IP6 (flowlabel 0x09036, hlim 64, next-header Fragment (44) payload length: 1440) 2001:db8::1 > 2001:db8::2: frag (0x6f6f083c:0|1432) 39065 > commplex-link: UDP, length 1470 00:08:33.256320 IP6 (flowlabel 0x09036, hlim 64, next-header Fragment (44) payload length: 54) 2001:db8::1 > 2001:db8::1: frag (0x6f6f083c:1432|46) Regards, olivier
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bq%2BTcopbjXFMwEY2Y5F3xZDs8poTAWVSKFexgWp-MjvTFoV2A>