nanog mailing list archives
RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
From: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:42:27 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Tim McKee
The factor of 6 was just in reduction of overhead. Granted in the greater
scheme of things the overall 4% is relatively insignificant, but there have been many times when doing >multiple 10-100+GB transfers that I would have welcomed a 4% reduction of time spent twiddling thumbs! The 4% increase in available bandwidth is only part of the equation though. I would think that having to encap/decap 1/6 the number of packets(frames) from host to host and all routers/switches along the way would be beneficial, especially since some of these could be processing these in software. Certainly if there are FW or IPS involved. I'm not sure about the host side of things, but I'm guessing there would be efficiency increases there as well. Chuck
Current thread:
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?, (continued)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Nick Hilliard (Mar 10)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Tassos Chatzithomaoglou (Mar 10)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 10)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Mark Tinka (Mar 09)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Jakob Heitz (jheitz) (Mar 18)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Dale W. Carder (Mar 18)
- RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Jakob Heitz (jheitz) (Mar 18)
- RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Tim McKee (Mar 20)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Jakob Heitz (jheitz) (Mar 18)
- RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Tim McKee (Mar 20)
- RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Chuck Church (Mar 21)
- Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Dale W. Carder (Mar 18)