RE: [RPRWG] RE: [IPORPR] payload length and padding and stuff
Nader,
There are actually two different layers here.
802.3 MACs and PHYs MUST support a max frame length of 1522. You may find implementations that are both standard compliant and support jumbo sizes as proprietary extensions.
I think that 802.1 bridges do not have such a limitation within the standard. As you mention, they can be configured to support larger frame sizes. Actually some of the non-Ethernet 802 technologies already support larger frame sizes.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nader Vijeh [mailto:nader@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:10 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: iporpr@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: [IPORPR] payload length and padding and stuff
>
>
> Dan,
>
> Thank you for the correction. Jumbo frames are not supported
> by the 802.3
> standard.
> There are Ethernet switches on the market that support jumbo
> frames in a
> proprietary manner. Of course these will not interoperate
> with standard
> compliant 802.1 bridges. As I pointed out in the rest of the
> message, even
> if jumbo frames are supported, max frame size "needs to be
> configurable to
> be lower, in order to comply with transparent bridging requirements".
>
> Nader
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:45 AM
> To: Nader Vijeh; Necdet Uzun; Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: Frank Kastenholz; iporpr@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: [IPORPR] payload length and padding and stuff
>
>
> >
> > The max frame size may be extended beyond 802.3 1522 bytes
> > limit as there is
> > precedence in 802.3 community.
>
> Nader,
>
> I am not sure what you exactly mean. If you refer to what is
> popularly known
> as 'Jumbo frames', they are not supported by the IEEE 802.3
> standards.
>
> Dan
>