[132501] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Jumbo frame Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Nov 26 12:40:32 2010
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:26:30 +0200."
<20101126172630.GA507@mx.ytti.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:39:55 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1290793195_5841P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:26:30 +0200, Saku Ytti said:
> You are theoretically winning 4.2%, which works only internally in your
> network, so maybe you'll be able to capitalize on that 4.2% on backup
> traffic or so.
> Doesn't seem like that critical win to be honest.
That's only half the calculation. The *other* half is if you have gear that
has a packets-per-second issue - if you go to 9000 MTU, you can move 6 times as
much data in the same packets-per-second. Anybody who's ever had to
trim a complicated ACL list because it saturated the CPU knows what I mean.
--==_Exmh_1290793195_5841P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFM7/DrcC3lWbTT17ARArmxAJ49VN5I0mlSVCV+0aCOSQU9bQ8OwwCfciPR
QJYvC7ji+Ltg/VpVAxr95bY=
=pNJL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1290793195_5841P--
