|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. )
Same question once again. As long as most end users are running Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, DSL or Cable Modems, what is the point of jumbo frames/packets other than transferring BGP tables really fast. Did any one look into how many packets are moved through an OC-48 in 1 seconds. (approx. 6 million 40 byte packets). I think even without jumbo frames, this bandwidth will saturate most CPUs. Jumbo frames are pointless until most of the Internet end users switch to a jumbo frame based media. Yes, they look cool on the feature list (we support it as well). Yes they are marginally more efficient than 1500 byte MTUs ( 40/1500 vs 40/9000). But in reality, 99% or more of the traffic out there is less than 1500 bytes. In terms of packet counts, last time I looked at one, 50% of the packets were around 40 byte packets (ACKs) with another 40% or so at approx 576 bytes or so. What is the big, clear advantage of supporting jumbo frames? Bora ----- Original Message ----- From: "brett watson" <[email protected]> To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <[email protected]> Cc: "RJ Atkinson" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 11:11 PM Subject: Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. > > > > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > > > > Which OSs don't yet support this ? > > > > Not OS, drivers. Pick your favorite OS with GigE support, grep jumbo the > > drivers section. In a few cases the unix drivers support jumbo frames and > > the reference vendor drivers do not, in a couple its the other way around. > > I see its getting better though, there is more support then there used to > > be the last time I looked. > > you'd be surprised how many vendors aren't even considering supporting > jumbo frames, or worse don't understand why you'd want to. > > several vendors of optical gear (dwdm) i've run into lately weren't > even going to do it and didn't know why they should. this only > applies to vendors doing native GE, not vendors going true transparent > optics. > > -b >
|