nanog mailing list archives
Re: jumbo frames
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:55:21 -0500
From: "Kurt Kayser" <kurt () noris de>
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?
Intermediate routers to not 'collect' small packets into big packets.
Kurt
S -- Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to CCIE #3723 let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have K5SSS always said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein
Current thread:
- RE: jumbo frames, (continued)
- RE: jumbo frames John Fraizer (Apr 26)
- RE: jumbo frames Tony Hain (Apr 26)
- RE: jumbo frames Roeland Meyer (Apr 26)
- RE: jumbo frames Tony Hain (Apr 26)
- Re: jumbo frames Kurt Kayser (Apr 27)
- Re: jumbo frames Greg Maxwell (Apr 27)
- RE: jumbo frames Tony Hain (Apr 27)
- RE: jumbo frames Tony Hain (Apr 26)
- RE: jumbo frames John Fraizer (Apr 26)
- RE: jumbo frames Tony Hain (Apr 27)
- Re: jumbo frames John Fraizer (Apr 27)
- Re: jumbo frames Richard A. Steenbergen (Apr 27)