[40823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Aug 23 10:08:57 2001
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:08:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3B850BAD.3F088A32@depaul.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108231605350.3920-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, John Kristoff wrote:
> not ever support so called jumbo frames. What does having 9K ethernet
> frame support at a NAP get us? If one end of the connection, all those
You want to at least support 1600 or so, "baby jumbos" so people can
tunnel stuff without fragmentation if they like to. If you support 1600,
you're very likely to be able to support 4470 or larger, so why not do
that? Anyhow, you're removing one more reason why some people can say
"ethernet is lame for NAPs".
If NAPs do not support jumbos, then end systems will never support them.
If all internet backbone infrastructure supports larger frames, then there
is at least a possibility that end systems will in the long run.
A lot of servers are being connected via GigE nowadays, and with jumbos
being a possibility, why not support it?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
