nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...)
From: RJ Atkinson <rja () inet org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:58:54 -0400
At 11:14 23/08/01, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
On a GigE interface with jumbo frames where the other side on the same ethernet might not support jumbo frames that is probably not the case. The packet will simply get dropped and the sender will never know why it was dropped.
Folks sending anything larger than IEEE standard frame sizes on any Ethernet need to be sure to re-configure all the equipment accordingly and test the whole subnet out thoroughly. For now, there seems to be no substitute for that (and yes, it is a fair bit of work). As near as I can tell, all switches ship with IEEE-standard MTU as the default, so require manual operator reconfiguration to support any larger frame size. Ran rja () inet org
Current thread:
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...), (continued)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Miquel van Smoorenburg (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 22)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 22)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Miquel van Smoorenburg (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)