[93794] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Tue Dec 26 16:58:55 2006
In-Reply-To: <200612262012.kBQKCjLh004493@larry.centergate.com>
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:57:47 -0800
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Dec 26, 2006, at 12:12 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
> I'm not very excited about things like jumbo frames, in part because
> of the good work you did there to show hard they are to actually get
> end-to-end, but all it takes these days is for one middle box in the
> path to cripple, in any myriad of ways, an end host stack
> optimization.
Jumbo frames can certainly be helpful within the IDC, for example
between front-end systems and back-end database and/or storage
systems; the IDC is also a more controlled and predictable
environment (or at least it should be, heh) than the aggregate of
multiple transit/access networks, and therefore in most cases one
ought to be able to ensure that jumbo frames are supported end-to-end
between the relevant IDC-hosted systems (or even between multiple
IDCs within the same SP network). This isn't the same as a true end-
to-end capability between any discrete set of nodes on the Internet,
but they can still indirectly increased performance for a
topologically diverse user population by virtue of more optimal
throughput 'behind the curtains', as it were.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
All battles are perpetual.
-- Milton Friedman
