nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. )
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:44:18 -0700
Bora Akyol <akyol () akyol org> wrote:
What is the big, clear advantage of supporting jumbo frames?
There are none, not without doing something about TCP congestion control. The bigger frames are, the more coarse the congestion control is, and the flows are short enough on average to make it barely effectual. Increasing frame size to 10kb makes most flows "mice" flows, which kills the slow-start algorithm. Of course, flows may start by sending smaller frames first, but, again, what's the point? With 1500 byte frames, the framing overhead is about 2.8%, however, given that the 40% of packets are only 40-41 bytes long, this seems to be a very minor effect. --vadim
Current thread:
- Re: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. ) Vadim Antonov (Jun 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA. ) Richard A. Steenbergen (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Roeland Meyer (E-mail) (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) sthaug (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Roeland M.J. Meyer (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Marc Slemko (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner torestonVA. ) Roeland Meyer (E-mail) (Jun 19)
- RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Roeland Meyer (E-mail) (Jun 19)
- Re: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Bennett Todd (Jun 19)
- Re: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. ) Stephen Sprunk (Jun 19)