North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: jumbo frames
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Kurt Kayser wrote: > 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. I dont think that anyone discussed doing that... What was being said was that it makes sence to use jumbo frames between routers when they are encapsulating packets from links with a 1500b mtu, so you don't have to reduce your MTU to 1450 or fragment, i.e. endnode-ether-router>tunnel-jumbo_ether-router-jumbo-ether-tunnel>router-eth-end
|