From: Robert Hosford (rhosford@certifiednets.com)
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 14:55:21 ART
John,
Personally I wish that every device would support Jumbo frames. There are
so many headers that I would like to be supported so we don't have to
fragment as much as we do. ISL, Dot1.q, IPSEC, GRE, MPLS to name a few
places frame growth should be allowed.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of John
Gibson
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:46 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: dot1q tunneling "system mtu" is 3550, 3560 only and should be
considered "caveats" ?
We know span destination reflector port is 3550 only
and should be considered "caveats".
I am looking at 6500 switch's document , it doesn't
say any thing about increasing mtu by 4 bytes for
dot1q tunneling.
6500 switch's document generalizes the issue as
"jumbo frame support".
Every switch's software should only send packets at
1500 maximum but allow receiving a lot more bytes
as a measure of tolerance right ? When we do some
protocol, we don't assume we know what other unknown
protocols are doing to our packets right ? We don't
know what we don't know right ?
The increasing 4 byte thing will disappear soon
just like as soon as 3550 is gone, span reflector
port is gone right ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 01 2007 - 08:28:37 ART