nanog mailing list archives

Re: jumbo frames


From: Kurt Kayser <kurt () noris de>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:06:58 +0200


Hi,

Isn't it a lot more cpu-intensive to 'collect' some 1500-byte frames
into some larger bucket, reassemble it into a jumbo-frame when the next
box has to chop it in order to send it out on a Sonet/PPP/etc interface which 
might have a smaller MTU again?

Doesn't make too much sense to me. I guess that was Tony's aim as well..

Kurt
 
Roeland you are talking about jumbo frames from the end system lan, while
John is talking about only using the jumbo frames between the routers. My
point was that in John's environment the packets will all be 1500 since the
packets are restricted to that size just to get to the router with the GE
interface. I understand that there are perf gains as long as the entire path
supports the larger packets, but I don't understand the claim that having a
bigger pipe in the middle helps.

Tony

-- 
noris network AG   *  tel +49 911 93 52-0    *  internet
Kilianstraße 142  *  fax +49 911 93 52-100  *  solution
90425 Nürnberg   *  http://www.noris.net   *  provider


Current thread: