[29341] in North American Network Operators' Group
Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bora Akyol)
Mon Jun 19 01:24:42 2000
Message-ID: <004b01bfd9ae$25bccb90$af3710ac@pluris.com>
From: "Bora Akyol" <akyol@akyol.org>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Same question once again.
As long as most end users are running Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, DSL or Cable
Modems, what is the point of jumbo frames/packets other than transferring
BGP tables really fast. Did any one look into how many packets are moved
through an OC-48 in 1 seconds. (approx. 6 million 40 byte packets). I think
even without jumbo frames, this bandwidth will saturate most CPUs.
Jumbo frames are pointless until most of the Internet end users switch to a
jumbo frame based media.
Yes, they look cool on the feature list (we support it as well). Yes they
are marginally more efficient than 1500 byte MTUs ( 40/1500 vs 40/9000). But
in reality, 99% or more of the traffic out there is less than 1500 bytes. In
terms of packet counts, last time I looked at one, 50% of the packets were
around 40 byte packets (ACKs) with another 40% or so at approx 576 bytes or
so.
What is the big, clear advantage of supporting jumbo frames?
Bora
----- Original Message -----
From: "brett watson" <bwatson@mibh.net>
To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: "RJ Atkinson" <rja@inet.org>; <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA.
>
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > > Which OSs don't yet support this ?
> >
> > Not OS, drivers. Pick your favorite OS with GigE support, grep jumbo the
> > drivers section. In a few cases the unix drivers support jumbo frames
and
> > the reference vendor drivers do not, in a couple its the other way
around.
> > I see its getting better though, there is more support then there used
to
> > be the last time I looked.
>
> you'd be surprised how many vendors aren't even considering supporting
> jumbo frames, or worse don't understand why you'd want to.
>
> several vendors of optical gear (dwdm) i've run into lately weren't
> even going to do it and didn't know why they should. this only
> applies to vendors doing native GE, not vendors going true transparent
> optics.
>
> -b
>
