Return-Path: Subject: Re: [Bluez-users] MTU and MRU for Bluetooth From: Marcel Holtmann To: "Nicholas A. Preyss" Cc: BlueZ Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20040505211012.GA11210@gmx.net> References: <1083692600.4666.57.camel@pegasus> <20040505211012.GA11210@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1083790231.4420.40.camel@pegasus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bluez-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: bluez-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 22:50:31 +0200 Hi Nicholas, > I think, he wants a MTU size that doesn't lead to fragmentation on the > carrying transport medium. I think this doesn't make much sense due to > the "short" packets of bluetooth, and the fact that L2CAP packets can be > up to 2^16 bytes large. actually there is no proof that choosing a different MTU on the L2CAP level gives you any performance improvements. However a too small MTU decreases the performance and this is why we are using 1024 even if 672 is the default MTU. Some time ago we discussed this and until now nobody really proofed that a different MTU is better or that we should make the L2CAP MTU for RFCOMM configurable, because some upper layer will improve if we do so. Proof it to me and we will see ;) Regards Marcel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 _______________________________________________ Bluez-users mailing list Bluez-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users