North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Jumbo frames
Thus spake "Andy Davidson" <[email protected]> The original poster was talking about a streaming application - increasing the frame size can cause it take longer for frames to fill a packet and then hit the wire increasing actual latency in your application. It's a serious issue for voice due to the (relatively) low bandwidth, which is why most voice products only put 10-30ms of data in each packet. Video, OTOH, requires sufficient bandwidth that packetization time is almost irrelevant. With a highly compressed 1Mbit/s stream you're looking at 12ms to fill a 1500B packet vs 82ms to fill a 10kB packet. It's longer, yes, but you need jitter buffers of 100-200ms to do real-time media across the Internet, so that and speed-of-light issues are the dominant factors in application latency. And, as bandwidth inevitably grows (e.g. ATSC 1080i or 720p take up to 19Mbit/s), packetization time quickly fades into the background noise. Now, if we were talking about greater-than-64kB jumbograms, that might be another story, but most folks today use "jumbo" to mean packets of 8kB to 10kB, and "baby jumbos" to mean 2kB to 3kB. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
|