[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reopening jumbo frames in IS-IS
- To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>
- Subject: Re: Reopening jumbo frames in IS-IS
- From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis at faster-light.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:15:59 -0400
- Cc: rtg-dir at ietf.org, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman at sun.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at nokia.com>, iesg at ietf.org, routing-discussion at ietf.org, curtis at faster-light.net, Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>, Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu>
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:01:21 CDT." <026601c58978$13564970$6501a8c0@dax>
- List-help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: curtis at faster-light.net
- Sender: rtg-dir-bounces at ietf.org
In message <026601c58978$13564970$6501a8c0 at dax>
"Stephen Sprunk" writes:
>
> Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at nokia.com>
> > Radia,
> >
> >>What are the technical reasons that IEEE does not like large packets?
> >
> > I can't speak for IEEE, but I have always thought that one of there
> > reasons that Ethernet has been so successful is that that IEEE tried
> > very hard to insure backward compatibility between the different
> > versions. It made it easier to bridge between 10M/100M/1G/10G/etc.
> > versions, new versions didn't break any protocols that ran over Ethernet,
> > and it is easier to build NICs that supported a range of variants.
> >
> > It also avoided having to build things like a FDDI/Ethernet bridge I once
> > heard about that supported IP fragmentation. I bet you remember that :-)
>
> Wait a minute... If Ethernet supported jumbo frames, the FDDI-Ethernet
> bridge wouldn't have needed to support fragmentation -- just set the
> Ethernet side's MTU to 4470 and all would be well.
>
> I dealt with this many times when bridging Token Ring and Ethernet, and the
> only solution that worked in every case was to drop the Token Ring's MTU
> (network-wide, since TR implies SRB) down to 1500 -- a horrible kludge.
> Sometimes other tactics worked, including dropping oversized frames with no
> fragmentation, but some SNA apps were really touchy about that. IP handled
> things a bit better, but still not as well as jumbos would have.
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
> CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Maybe the problem is that bridging dissimilar interfaces is itself a
horrible hack. That's what routing is for. Yes, some protocols don't
support routing but they are now dinosaurs, SNA included. I thought
the days of building networks around the needs of netbios, netware 3,
and sna were over.
Curtis