nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell () martin fl us>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:37:09 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, John Kristoff wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:If NAPs do not support jumbos, then end systems will never support them.Many end systems will never support jumbo frames, period. There are lots of 10/100 Mb/s ethernet hosts that will not ever be upgraded.
While not a standard feature, many 100mbit nics support jumbo on full-duplex links and some 100tx switches do as well.
Certainly. In a nutshell, it might be best to take steps to avoid fragmentation elsewhere in the network. Perhaps a rule of thumb that should be stressed is to use jumbo frames if you know for sure the other end system(s) support it, otherwise default to 1500.
Path MTU discovery works fine. (except for broken firewalls) Your complaint about end systems never supporting jumbos is a moot point because if neither end supports them, then PMTU discovery isn't even an issue.
Current thread:
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...), (continued)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Miquel van Smoorenburg (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)