[124789] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Mon Apr 5 00:06:09 2010
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:05:27 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100405025742.GR75640@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> 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.
Not that I disagree, given that we use them rather a lot but 7.2usec (at
10Gbe) is sort of a long time to wait before a store and forward arch
switch gets down to the task of figuring out what to do with the packet.
The problem gets worse if mtu sizes bigger than 9k ever become popular,
kind of like being stuck behind an elephant while boarding an elevator.
