[115746] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Point to Point Ethernet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Wed Jul 8 10:50:38 2009
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907081635260.15149@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:50:21 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> 1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If
>> we want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
>
From what I have been told, IEEE 802 refuses to make a Jumbo frame
standard, for backwards compatibility reasons.
Joe St Sauver's jumbo frame site :
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/jumbo-clean-gear.html
shows what a mess this is. There isn't a standard now, and if you "ask
for one in the next standard" you may be in for a long wait.
> To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
> packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1500 for ethernet,
> anything else is vendor extension, outside the standard.
>
> Ethernet overhead compared to HDLC is pretty big...
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
>
Regards
Marshall
AmericaFree.TV
