Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:45:40 -0500 From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: fbsd2 <fbsd2@a1poweruser.com>, David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Subject: Re: 10Mbps versus 100Mbps Cable Modems Message-ID: <200707121545.43465.josh@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <20070712161106.GB7989@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> References: <20070711174502.GB1435@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBKENBCEAA.fbsd2@a1poweruser.com> <20070712161106.GB7989@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200707121545.43465.josh>