Re: Jumbo frame Question

On 11/29/10 1:18 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 11/29/2010 1:10 PM, John Kristoff wrote: > In a nutshell, as I recall, one of the prime motivating factors for > not standardizing jumbos was interoperability issues with the > installed base, which penalizes other parts of the network (e.g. > routers ha

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On 11/29/2010 1:10 PM, John Kristoff wrote: In a nutshell, as I recall, one of the prime motivating factors for not standardizing jumbos was interoperability issues with the installed base, which penalizes other parts of the network (e.g. routers having to perform fragmentation) for the benefit

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:24:57 -0500 Randy Bush wrote: > the reason ieee has not allowed upping of the frame size is that the > crc is at the prudent limits at 1500. yes, we do another check above > the frame (uh, well, udp4 may not), but the ether spec can not count > on that. I wasn't there, bu

Re: Jumbo frame Question

the start > > We keep getting faster switchports, but the MTU is still 1500 MTU! I'm sure > someone has done some testing with > a 10/100 switch with jumbo frames enables versus a 10/100/1000 switch using > regular 1500 MTU and compared > the performance. > >

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Randy Bush wrote: the reason ieee has not allowed upping of the frame size is that the crc is at the prudent limits at 1500. yes, we do another check above the frame (uh, well, udp4 may not), but the ether spec can not count on that.

RE: Jumbo frame Question

> > 1500 MTU made sense when network was 10 megabit/s. > > > > Now that we have gig and 10GE (and soon general availability of > 100GE), I > > don't understand why 9000 makes people excited, if we're going to do > a > > serious effort towards larger MTU, let's make it 15 then (100x) > or at > >

Re: Jumbo frame Question

> 1500 MTU made sense when network was 10 megabit/s. > > Now that we have gig and 10GE (and soon general availability of 100GE), I > don't understand why 9000 makes people excited, if we're going to do a > serious effort towards larger MTU, let's make it 15 then (100x) or at > least 64k. t

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On (2010-11-26 12:39 -0500), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > That's only half the calculation. The *other* half is if you have gear that > has a packets-per-second issue - if you go to 9000 MTU, you can move 6 times > as > much data in the same packets-per-second. Anybody who's ever had to > tr

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:26:30 +0200, Saku Ytti said: > You are theoretically winning 4.2%, which works only internally in your > network, so maybe you'll be able to capitalize on that 4.2% on backup > traffic or so. > Doesn't seem like that critical win to be honest. That's only half the calculati

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On (2010-11-25 21:14 -0800), George Bonser wrote: Hey George, > 9000 MTU internally. We don't deploy any servers anymore with MTU 1500. > MTU 1500 is just plain stupid with any network >100mb ethernet. I'm big proponent of high MTU, to facilitate user MTU of 1500 while adding say GRE or IPSEC ov

RE: Jumbo frame Question

Jon, Do you have something blocking MTU Path Discovery? Unless I'm off base on this, shouldn't that be taking care of your issue? -Richard -Original Message- From: Jon Meek [mailto:mee...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 12:17 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: J

Re: Jumbo frame Question

I have the "opposite problem". I use iperf to test WAN and VPN throughput and packet loss, but find that the sending Linux system starts out with the expected MTU / MSS but then ramps up the packet size to way beyond 1500. The result is that network equipment must fragment the packets. On higher ba

RE: Jumbo frame Question

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Brandon Kim wrote: We keep getting faster switchports, but the MTU is still 1500 MTU! I'm sure someone has done some testing with a 10/100 switch with jumbo frames enables versus a 10/100/1000 switch using regular 1500 MTU and compared the performance. 1500 MTU made

RE: Jumbo frame Question

les versus a 10/100/1000 switch using regular 1500 MTU and compared the performance. > Subject: RE: Jumbo frame Question > Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:14:02 -0800 > From: gbon...@seven.com > To: harris@hk1.ibm.com; nanog@nanog.org > > > Hi > > > > Does

RE: Jumbo frame Question

> Hi > > Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame > enabled network? > > I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber link across east > coast > and west coast with the Juniper devices. > > Based on the default TCP windows in Linux / Windows and the latency > b

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Harris Hui wrote: You might want to read this: http://kb.pert.geant.net/PERTKB/JumboMTU -Hank Hi Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame enabled network? I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber link across east coast and west co

Re: Jumbo frame Question

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> From: Harris Hui >> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:57 +0800 >> >> Hi >> >> Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame >> enabled network? >> >> I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber link across east coa

Re: Jumbo frame Question

This helps tons. speedguide.net has some registry 'tweeks' for different versions of windows. Also Win7 had the ability to turn on a FASTTCP type of congestion management called Compound TCP. I haven't tried the windows version so ymmv, but I have experienced great success by changing the con

Re: Jumbo frame Question

> From: Harris Hui > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:57 +0800 > > Hi > > Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame > enabled network? > > I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber link across east coast > and west coast with the Juniper devices. > > Based on t

Re: Jumbo frame Question

TCP maximum window sizes. Application socket buffer sizes. Fix those and re-test! Adrian On Fri, Nov 26, 2010, Harris Hui wrote: > > > Hi > > Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame > enabled network? > > I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber lin