[40831] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Antony Antony)
Thu Aug 23 11:40:43 2001
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:37:05 +0200
From: Antony Antony <antony@phenome.org>
To: jtk@aharp.is-net.depaul.edu
Cc: Nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010823173705.A10974@xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3B8510A1.B596C9B5@depaul.edu>; from jtk@depaul.edu on Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:18:09AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:18:09AM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
>
> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > If NAPs do not support jumbos, then end systems will never support them.
>
> Many end systems will never support jumbo frames, period. There are
> lots of 10/100 Mb/s ethernet hosts that will not ever be upgraded.
3Com Vortex/Boomerang 10/100 Mb/s claims to support
FIDDI size packets 4.5K.
Texas Instruments ThunderLAN 10/100Mbps PCI Network Controller can support
65536 bytes.
Details http://www.scyld.com/expert/100mbps.html
Any one has experience with TI chipset ?
for those who interested in IPv6, Path MTU Discovery is not in IPv6 stack.
To have end to end jumbo frames in native v6 we NAPs in the path
should support jumbo frames.
-antony
