[e2e] Small packets - Definition needed..

[David P. Reed]

I've been for a while now suggesting that we should design networks as 
if they are in a phase analogous to the liquid phase.   Let's eliminate 
the rocks - a crusher or two would do the job.  Then the sand could be 
turned into a slurry by applying some high frequency acoustic energy at 
the SIP control points.

Christian Huitema wrote:
>> Dah Ming Chiu wrote:
>>     
>>> A natural reason for discussing "small" vs "large" packets is
>>>       
>> concerned
>>     
>>> with the packet header overhead, as several people suggested.  For
>>>       
>> Yes. There is a tradeoff between packet lenght and header size. That´s
>> well known.
>>     
>
> There is another dimension, besides overhead. It has to do with queue management and you of course now that the Internet is made of a big collection of tubes through which the information flows. The packet size affects how your packets are going to flow in "the tubes". Small packets flow like sand, big ones like rocks.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>
>
>
>