From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB44C21F3A4 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nt9so13188563obb.13 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gcGh1H+vkq2ec7JBt5C39F2yhWpBTeHhRwqE6e/+w/Q=; b=Plo93SZul7KJE+CsHV29ih2ciF7aVcDbv16cxXUsGon/g7mmDj4+dRM8tbgDY3JqvJ E/U5HCivNo9paA/nVnV4e12jkAW9OKCxeoThfC/0EaZv9bDQyIJVn0bQ3OhSqasBXrXx 2xY6zBl6N0rjyw4pkp/88CdF3ykkf73coFSFOCCbM5JVWdSi/u0JPvaRMu81/RktY9JI gyPS6Ho/+i1uGkwvG24bMmB9iyV+ayWlD7h/EwPagfC7rCq0TyePO1mR9kcZ1JahoW9p leX/8vyEzBCQXixRMT5hhSIzQe5WKvndMRgSBN7qEI4vVoYOqdPS6ga/d2rG1FAQBKXl psZg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.111.131 with SMTP id v3mr4059793oik.133.1423779800790; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:23:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: David Lang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] MTU question X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:23:51 -0000 The max mtu for wifi is somewhere around 2300 bytes. So there is not a lot of benefit, and all kinds of headaches for other devices. I don't remember the max mtu for the ag71xx but I think it was 1514+vlan header only... No point. The only case where I can think it is useful is when you are tunnelling some protocol over another protocol on a wifi p2p link and don't want to mess with the underlying mtu. That was the use case for it when I tried to deploy ipv4 over ipv6 with the nat work being done on the edgepoints a few years back. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:46 PM, David Lang wrote: > It occured to me as I was driving home last night that if the APs are > working to combine packets into a single transmission due to the high > overhead of independent transmissions, would it possibly improve wifi > performance to just configure a larger MTU? > > Has anyone done any experimentation in this area? > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks