Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration: Jumbo Frames
Thanks Larry and excuse my ignorance ... I spent the last ten years in general management so getting back to engineering is not that easy :)
Back to Joel's suggestion to deal with jumbo frames:
Joel - can you elaborate on what you had in mind in terms of where and how to apply this into the 802.3 standards and which ones?
Menachem
Sent from my Blackberry
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Rubin <larry.rubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:47:59
To:STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration: Jumbo Frames
Actually, the 802.3 MAC is not speed agnostic. We cracked that seal when we
specified that 10G is only full duplex.
-----Original Message-----
From: Menachem Abraham [mailto:mabraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration: Jumbo Frames
Since 802.3 has a speed agnostic MAC specification, wouldn't we want to keep
it that way and therefore not make jumbo frames an HSSG specific work item?
Menachem Sent from my Blackberry
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Johas Teener <Mikejt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:35:56
To:STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [HSSG] Topics for Consideration: Jumbo Frames
Jumbo frames are great as long as you stay in the HS environment. A jumbo
frame hitting a 100baseT (or, heaven help us, a 10baseT) link will mess with
any QoS assumptions. Nasty things will happen bridging to non-Ethernet 802
LANs as well. I think this question needs to be addressed at a combo
802.1/802.3 level since it is a real architecture issue ...
On 8/9/06 12:09 PM, "Joel Goergen" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Both my position and that of the customers I deal with is that higher
> speeds, 10gbps included, is more efficient with the larger packets.
>
> -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