|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:42:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: William Herrin <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com> In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0907080803g7d9d84b5w4ed051c0c7d3fc51@mail.gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote: > At the cost of low-volume production run hardware which is A. much more > expensive (because of the low volume), B. restricted to a few supported > routers and C. less thoroughly tested. I don't see how you come out > ahead in that calculation. The only way to do it would be to make this a standard in the next evolution of Ethernet, perhaps 400GE. I don't see this happening though. But the only REASON to do it, would be to lessen overhead for small packets. I don't see how you can not see this. > My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for > compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default. You have to > explicitly configure it and you must configure it the same on every host > and switch within the broadcast zone. For a point to point link, this > should be trivial. No, IEEE says only 1500 payload MTU. This was discussed in 40GE and 100GE, and IEEE left the framesize the same way it's always been. > I gather from your list that not everything which supports gige also > supports jumbo frames but that most things do. Yes, but that doesn't make it standard. It makes it common. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |