[188414] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Church)
Mon Mar 21 11:42:35 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
To: "'Tim McKee'" <tim@baseworx.net>,
"'Jakob Heitz \(jheitz\)'" <jheitz@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <08d0aa25565c44679307ca50a074e38b@baseworx.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:42:27 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Tim McKee
>The factor of 6 was just in reduction of overhead. Granted in the greater
scheme of things the overall 4% is relatively insignificant, but there have
been many times when doing >multiple 10-100+GB transfers that I would have
welcomed a 4% reduction of time spent twiddling thumbs!
The 4% increase in available bandwidth is only part of the equation though.
I would think that having to encap/decap 1/6 the number of packets(frames)
from host to host and all routers/switches along the way would be
beneficial, especially since some of these could be processing these in
software. Certainly if there are FW or IPS involved. I'm not sure about
the host side of things, but I'm guessing there would be efficiency
increases there as well.
Chuck
