nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jumbo frame Question
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:24:57 -0500
1500 MTU made sense when network was 10 megabit/s. Now that we have gig and 10GE (and soon general availability of 100GE), I don't understand why 9000 makes people excited, if we're going to do a serious effort towards larger MTU, let's make it 150000 then (100x) or at least 64k.
the reason ieee has not allowed upping of the frame size is that the crc is at the prudent limits at 1500. yes, we do another check above the frame (uh, well, udp4 may not), but the ether spec can not count on that. randy
Current thread:
- Jumbo frame Question Harris Hui (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Hank Nussbacher (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Jon Meek (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Richard Graves (RHT) (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question George Bonser (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Brandon Kim (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Randy Bush (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question George Bonser (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question John Kristoff (Nov 29)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Jack Bates (Nov 29)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Douglas Otis (Nov 29)
- need a contact Geo. (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Joel Jaeggli (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Matthew Petach (Nov 26)