[188389] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim McKee)
Sun Mar 20 10:54:14 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Tim McKee <tim@baseworx.net>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "Dale W. Carder"
<dwcarder@wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:45:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <84be9c0e00df4e1698ab70a32dd77055@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I would hazard a guess that reducing the packet header overhead *and* the E=
thernet interframe gap time by a factor of 6 could make enough of an improv=
ement to be quite noticeable when dealing with huge dataset transfers.
Tim McKee
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jhei=
tz)
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 18:21
To: Dale W. Carder
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
Then it's mainly TCP slowstart that you're trying to improve?
Thanks,
Jakob.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:dwcarder@wisc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 3:03 PM
> To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
>=20
> Thus spake Jakob Heitz (jheitz) (jheitz@cisco.com) on Fri, Mar 18, 2016 a=
t 09:29:44PM +0000:
> > What's driving the desire for larger packets?
>=20
> In our little corner of the internet, it is to increase the=20
> performance of a low number of high-bdp flows which are typically dataset=
transfers.
> All of our non-commercial peers support 9k.
>=20
> Dale
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4542/11829 - Release Date: 03/17/16
