On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:24 AM Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> wrote: > > On 12/18/2023 9:15 AM, Kyle Rose wrote: > > Right, I should have said*at best* a 6x improvement. The point I'm trying > > to get to is: how much sense does it make to try to make the public > > internet safe for jumbo frames? I honestly don't know, and since I wasn't > > at the meeting, I don't know much much this was even a focus. > > It is certainly less that 6x, especially for encrypted transports. There > is a fixed cost per packet, but is corresponds more or less to the > encryption of a per packet header and checksum, so maybe 32 to 64 bytes. > After that, the cost of encryption is linear with the size of the message. > > That does not mean that we should not do it. How many of us remember > mocking ATM and its 48 byte packet size? The max speed of ATM circuits > then was maybe 150Mbps, and 48 bytes meant 2.6us. Guess what, at 10Gbps, > 1500 bytes means 1.2us...
Christian, Right, and at 1Tbps 1500 bytes means 12ns! With respect to Internet protocols there's no reason to artificially limit MTUs to 1500 bytes, or for that matter even 9000 bytes or 64K bytes with IPv6. Tom > > -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
