On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermann<nanog-list@nrg4u.com> wrote:
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
They sort of did a few decades back, created HDLC (5 bytes minimum) and PPP (6 bytes minimum) for P2P links. I think you're at risk of over-thinking this problem working in reverse from ethernet to something slightly-less-than-ethernet. Further, if we want to get truly sizable improvement from 'ethernet like p2p paradigm' we can *drop the damn IFG and preample.* http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/ Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e. No matter how you slice it, it's not getting better than what we've already got (i.e. p2p link prots). Though, I do somewhat relate to your disgust and general sentiments. In 2009 I have cheap asics that can recover clock from line code alone and we're not doing CSMA/CD, so what's the freaking point of IFG and preamble? ./rhetorical (see lanhy vs. wanphy) -Tk