On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
And by that I mean using 1500 MTU is what degrades the performance, not
the ethernet physical transport. Using MTU 9000 would give you better
performance than SONET. That is why Internet2 pushes so hard for people
to use the largest possible MTU and
Subject: RE: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-) Date: Sat, Nov
06, 2010 at 08:38:33PM -0700 Quoting George Bonser (gbon...@seven.com):
No wonder there is still so much transport
using SONET. Using Ethernet reduces your effective performance over
long distance paths.
The only
Also, if we're going to go for bigger MTUs, going from 1500 to 9000 is
basically worthless, if we really want to do something, we should go
for
64k or even bigger.
I agree but we need to work with what we have. Practically everything
currently appearing at a peering point will support
The only reason to use (10)GE for transmission in WAN is the completely
baroque price difference in interface pricing. With todays line rates,
the components and complexity of a line card are pretty much equal
between SDH and GE. There is no reason to overcharge for the better
interface
So, question I don't want to forget between now and when I wake up (since its
late in my neck of the woods)...
Has any work been done with 1500 mtu on 802.11 links?
Is it feasable, or even possible?
I'm in the middle of rolling out a wisp in an area, and it dawned on me I never
even
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
True, but TCP is what we are stuck with for right now. Different
protocols could be developed to handle the small packets better.
We're not stuck with TCP, TCP is being developed all the time.
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 08:02:28AM +0100, Mans Nilsson wrote:
The only reason to use (10)GE for transmission in WAN is the
completely baroque price difference in interface pricing. With todays
line rates, the components and complexity of a line card are pretty
much equal between SDH and
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:34:56AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that the
investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
has been paid back by now and they can lower the prices dramatically.
One would think
Oh, come on. Get real. The world TCP speed record is 10GE right now,
it'll
go higher as soon as there are higher interface speeds to be had.
You can buy 100G right now. I also believe there are some 40G
available, too.
Also, check this:
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13216
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do with
stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast. And
TCP SACK.
I'm too tired to correct your other statements that lack basis in reality
(or at least in my
Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that
the
investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
has been paid back by now and they can lower the prices
dramatically.
One would think the vendors would be practically giving it away,
particularly
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, George Bonser wrote:
I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do
with
stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast.
And
TCP SACK.
I'm too tired to correct your other statements that lack basis in
reality
(or at least
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:29, Matthew Petach wrote:
There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange points.
Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX,
LINX,
DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicating
their
I guess you didn't read the links earlier. It has nothing to do
with
stack tweaks. The moment you lose a single packet, you are toast.
And
TCP SACK.
Certainly helps but still has limitations. If you have too many packets
in flight, it can take too long to locate the SACKed packet in
On 7 Nov 2010, at 08:24, George Bonser wrote:
It will happen on its own as more and more networks configure internally
for larger frames and as more people migrate out of academia where 9000
is the norm these days into industry.
I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly
I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly small
incidence of edge ports supporting 1500byte MTU. It's possibly even
more tricky than the IX situation to support in an environment where
you commonly have mixed devices at different speeds (most 100mbit
devices will not
The latest version of WANGuard Flow exports flows to Excel and CSV.
You can download a trial from http://www.andrisoft.com
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Mike Gatti ekim.it...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data
to export to CSV?
On 11/7/2010 3:45 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
I used to run a large academic network; there was a vanishingly small
incidence of edge ports supporting 1500byte MTU.
I run a moderately sized academic network, and know some details of our
other campus infrastructure (some larger, some smaller).
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let
me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... ;-)
And so, ...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture:
Layers are recursive.
Hi Scott,
On 11/08/2010 07:57 GMT+08:00, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let
me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... ;-)
And so, ...the first principle of our proposed new
20 matches
Mail list logo
