[36971] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: jumbo frames
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Fri Apr 27 12:47:03 2001
Reply-To: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "Greg Maxwell" <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>,
"Kurt Kayser" <kurt@noris.de>
Cc: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
"John Fraizer" <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>,
"Paul Lantinga" <prl@q9.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:27:06 -0700
Message-ID: <IEEOIFENFHDKFJFILDAHKEOICGAA.alh-ietf@tndh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010427114224.19462D-100000@da1server>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Greg Maxwell wrote:
>that it makes sence to use jumbo frames between routers when they are
>encapsulating packets from links with a 1500b mtu, so you don't have to
>reduce your MTU to 1450 or fragment, i.e.
>endnode-ether-router>tunnel-jumbo_ether-router-jumbo-ether-tunnel>router-et
h-end
Thank you. This explains why jumbo frames make sense. Without the context
that there are tunnels, statements about performance gains appeared to be
subjective.
Tony
