nanog mailing list archives
RE: Jumbo frames
From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:54:35 +0100
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. Probably doesn't matter when the stream is text, but as voice and video get pushed around via IP more and more, this will matter.
Increasing the MTU is not the same as increasing the frame size. MTU stands for Maximum Transmission Unit and is a ceiling on the frame size. Frames larger than the MTU must be fragmented. Clearly it is dumb for a voice application or a realtime video application to use large frames, but setting the MTU on a WAN interface to something higher than 1500 does not require the application to fill up its frames. Also, if a video application is not realtime, then use of large frames is more likely to do good than to do harm. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: TCP and WAN issue, (continued)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Roland Dobbins (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Robert Boyle (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue JAKO Andras (Mar 27)
- RE: TCP and WAN issue michael.dillon (Mar 27)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames michael.dillon (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- Re: Jumbo frames Andy Davidson (Mar 29)
- RE: Jumbo frames michael.dillon (Mar 29)
- Re: Jumbo frames Stephen Sprunk (Mar 30)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames Hank Nussbacher (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: Perry Lorier (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Steve Meuse (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Andre Oppermann (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Marshall Eubanks (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Simon Leinen (Mar 28)