From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 31 22:27:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42DB106564A for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:27:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cochard@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CD08FC15 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so2527443wgb.31 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:27:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=HJEl9zxcwRnYGTroAf/SIZYiwc4Zhws703hFMot6dsE=; b=gwT3+b6qL37EQpgAyTJ69TUZ3e2a4Ensg+QCe2wAoAWxlO7MSj5XN5AB0bhk26gIKs 5fCmdevBfkBXT5nL3yzWVuVDDAKr1RXKEX4Qvy2oJhSN+p6/cYBSHtAXXJk5s0/K99Rc IfadSfLaAlpA3INZxsX3xSwg7mQjNhe1F1UwGAHr3Tzse8RiVh61+mPc/D5NGi/wmfEf BMRS4f6dkoe+HrtIxRVXjqQ7NInUmqS5UlKWbuJwgyJCaNa3jy2HFB6YByUtFZgQQFK9 oOwdFAH4NlDaCOqPt8BlhT+yzAj/B4wCsHtWuQnDjcrwgVCd3hqqyBgzAJxTtP+J5sa7 3C/w== Received: by 10.180.100.37 with SMTP id ev5mr7313759wib.5.1346452035196; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:27:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cochard@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.153.200 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:26:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de> References: <503CE60F.8040007@yahoo.de> <503E5C14.9090001@yahoo.de> <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:26:55 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XMgcJ6dSXpWtDVGyU-4g1joR0pY Message-ID: To: Norbert Aschendorff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 Ethernet Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:27:16 -0000 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Norbert Aschendorff 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