Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:258 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:6599 comp.protocols.misc:530
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ig!arizona!joel
From: joel@arizona.edu (Joel M. Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: TCP/IP vs. OSI Performance
Summary: About the same
Message-ID: <9882@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 89 06:50:32 GMT
References: <529@skep2.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: jms@mis.arizona.edu (Joel M. Snyder)
Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 11

8473 should perform at about the same speed as IP.  I implemented ISO IP
by editing DoD IP code and doing a bit of twiddling of the field
positions.  It turns out that ISO IP is more efficient in its use of
memory; you know at the first fragment the length of the entire message,
so you can preallocate.  Other than that, the protocols are almost
identical.  Of course, some of this depends on whether or not you've
been computing your IP checksum  (and your TCP checksum :-) :-) ).

Joel Snyder
U Arizona MIS Dep't
ANSI X3S3.7