[124781] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Sun Apr 4 22:58:23 2010
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:57:42 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100405105746.750257bf@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
> of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
> byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link they're wasting 100+ Mbps. 100GE /
> 1TE starts to make it even more worth doing.
If you're lobbying to have the IEEE do something intelligent to Ethernet
why don't you start with a freaking standardization of jumbo frames. The
lack of a real standard and any type of negotiation protocol for two
devices under different administrative control are all but guaranteeing
end to end jumbo frame support will never be practical.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
