Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:18:56 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@plutotech.com> Cc: mjacob@feral.com, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what's the best working gigabit ether card... Message-ID: <199908261718.NAA05996@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:58:36 MDT." <199908261558.JAA83092@panzer.kdm.org> References: <199908261558.JAA83092@panzer.kdm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Another thing to keep in mind, if you're going to be connecting more than > two machines, is that the Alteon switches are the only ones that I've seen > that currently claim to do jumbo frames. They cost a bundle, but they're > more or less the only game in town. My guess is that will change > eventually. Packet Engines is also doing jumbo sized Gigabit ethernet in their switches. This was something that was a requirement at work (UUNET) since the backbone already carries 4470 bytes frames, and we didn't want to have to fragment going over gigabit ethernet plumbing. You might also check around for an Internet Draft recently published on how to encapsulate jumbo-sized frames. This can be problematic for some protocols that use SNAP encapsulation since the ethernet type field is used as a length; this normally isn't a problem since the lengths were smaller then the range of ethernet types assigned. With jumbo frames, this is no longer true. In our case, this came up in the context of encapsulating CLNS frames on the wire. This is used commonly on ISP backbones that run Integrated IS-IS routing protocol as their IGP. louie (aka louie@UU.NET) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908261718.NAA05996>