I would hazard a guess that reducing the packet header overhead *and* the Ethernet interframe gap time by a factor of 6 could make enough of an improvement to be quite noticeable when dealing with huge dataset transfers.
Tim McKee -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz) Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 18:21 To: Dale W. Carder Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? Then it's mainly TCP slowstart that you're trying to improve? Thanks, Jakob. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:dwcar...@wisc.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 3:03 PM > To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? > > Thus spake Jakob Heitz (jheitz) (jhe...@cisco.com) on Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at > 09:29:44PM +0000: > > What's driving the desire for larger packets? > > In our little corner of the internet, it is to increase the > performance of a low number of high-bdp flows which are typically dataset > transfers. > All of our non-commercial peers support 9k. > > Dale ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4542/11829 - Release Date: 03/17/16
