[36930] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: jumbo frames
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Thu Apr 26 12:35:24 2001
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
To: Paul Lantinga <prl@q9.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <05924A4A9DEDAD46A21EE3C8C64B090D3D4A72@cheetah.zoo.q9networks.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104261226430.12227-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
We only have jumbo frames enabled on router<->router links. The GigE
ports facing the aggregation switches runs standard 1500 MTU.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Paul Lantinga wrote:
> well, actually, I haven't had any for, oh, 5 years. Anyhow, what I was
> getting at was what kind of price you pay performancewise for mtuX <-->
> mtuY? Isn't there some penalty you pay in the conversion of jumbo to
> normal?
>
> Years ago I ran a network that was all fddi with 4k mtu in the core and to
> all the servers Everthing else ran ethernet and thus didn't get the
> advantage of the big packets.
>
> -Paul.
>
