Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption




Dear Ajay,

	Although prior art does not mean it is the best way,
most other dots, except for .3 has system settable maximum
MTU per segment that is equal to or less than the maximum MTU
per standard.  This could be set via Mgmt interface, and I
presume at this point would via defined MIBs.  The minimum
transfer unit per each dots is not settable and are fixed #s'.

	Since RPR is not a routed (or MPLS) path, and is shared
segment, it makes sense to follow the prior art, if the group
wants this flexibility.  By the way, this is how TR subnet is
connected to the Ethernet Backbone, by setting its L2 MTU to
less than or equal Ethernet L2 MTU (allowing for encapsulation
or translation variances).

	regards,

Yong.

============================================
Yongbum "Yong" Kim      Direct (408)922-7502
Technical Director      Mobile (408)887-1058
3151 Zanker Road        Fax    (408)922-7530
San Jose, CA 95134      Main   (408)501-7800
ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx      www.broadcom.com
============================================


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Ajay Sahai
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:30 AM
To: Pankaj K Jha
Cc: Denton Gentry; Devendra Tripathi; Aybay, Gunes; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] More comments on preemption


Hi Pankaj

If RPR allows for MTU negotiation I have no issue with Jumbo Frames. However
I have not seen any control protocols that do such functions for RPR.

Pankaj K Jha wrote:

>  And, if any network cannot tolerate larger MTU sizes,
> nodes can always negotiate lower MTU - this is fairly standard.
>

Is there any interest in the group to invent/adopt/extend any protocols that
do these functions? If not I would like to understand how these functions
will be
done.

Thanks

Ajay