|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: jumbo frames
I am not an EE but maybe if you rephrased the question as Which is greater, the cpu cycles to assemble/dissemble jumbo frames or the additional cycles/bandwidth of more numerous ACK packets? Then again, I may be way out of my depth here. -Al -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Kayser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:07 AM To: Tony Hain Cc: Roeland Meyer; John Fraizer; Paul Lantinga; [email protected] Subject: Re: jumbo frames Hi, Isn't it a lot more cpu-intensive to 'collect' some 1500-byte frames into some larger bucket, reassemble it into a jumbo-frame when the next box has to chop it in order to send it out on a Sonet/PPP/etc interface which might have a smaller MTU again? Doesn't make too much sense to me. I guess that was Tony's aim as well.. Kurt > Roeland you are talking about jumbo frames from the end system lan, while > John is talking about only using the jumbo frames between the routers. My > point was that in John's environment the packets will all be 1500 since the > packets are restricted to that size just to get to the router with the GE > interface. I understand that there are perf gains as long as the entire path > supports the larger packets, but I don't understand the claim that having a > bigger pipe in the middle helps. > > Tony > -- noris network AG * tel +49 911 93 52-0 * internet Kilianstra�e 142 * fax +49 911 93 52-100 * solution 90425 N�rnberg * http://www.noris.net * provider
|