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" <bwatson@mibh.net> To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> Cc: "RJ Atkinson" <rja@inet.org>; <nanog@merit.edu> 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