[115778] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Point to Point Ethernet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anton Kapela)
Wed Jul 8 19:04:47 2009
In-Reply-To: <4A546E70.9090604@nrg4u.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:04:20 -0400
From: Anton Kapela <tkapela@gmail.com>
To: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermann<nanog-list@nrg4u.com> wrote=
:
> Do you think this is useful? =A0Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
They sort of did a few decades back, created HDLC (5 bytes minimum)
and PPP (6 bytes minimum) for P2P links. I think you're at risk of
over-thinking this problem working in reverse from ethernet to
something slightly-less-than-ethernet.
Further, if we want to get truly sizable improvement from 'ethernet
like p2p paradigm' we can *drop the damn IFG and preample.*
http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/
Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e.
No matter how you slice it, it's not getting better than what we've
already got (i.e. p2p link prots).
Though, I do somewhat relate to your disgust and general sentiments.
In 2009 I have cheap asics that can recover clock from line code alone
and we're not doing CSMA/CD, so what's the freaking point of IFG and
preamble? ./rhetorical (see lanhy vs. wanphy)
-Tk
