Joel Goergen wrote:
Mike,
My preference is to associate this with MAC objectives. In past
meetings where this has been addressed, the atmosphere was 'tense'.
Thus best to get the debate over with asap and move on.
agreed.
I don't know at this point how to address your question. I suspect
that since 'all' of us support jumbos and we are inter-operable, that
there is a compelling argument to spec it but not change it.
that sounds reasonable. I just don't want to see this degenerate into
trying to spec 1MB max frame size, auto-negotiation of max framesize,
etc.
Both my position and that of the customers I deal with is that higher
speeds, 10gbps included, is more efficient with the larger packets.
no argument from me on this one, although the actual efficiency gained
comparing 1.5 K frames to 9 K frames is only ~ 2%, but when you're on
the cutting/bleeding edge of technology, every bit counts.
Mike
-joel
Mike Bennett wrote:
Joel,
Wouldn't jumbos be something better addressed separately? How do we
deal with backwards compatibility?
Mike
Joel Goergen wrote:
All,
If I go to any search engine and input "jumbo
ethernet frames chips", I will see that every system and silicon vendor
supports jumbo ethernet frames.
My question is not wether to support
jumbos,
because we all already do ... my question is should
we finally spec it out? I think we should, at a minimum, provision for
it.
-joel
--
Michael J. Bennett
Sr. Network Engineer
LBLnet Services Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Tel. 510.486.7913
|