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