From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Sep 19 06:01:25 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA16640 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA16609; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA02741; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:00:49 +0200 (MET DST) To: "Louis A. Mamakos" cc: "Gary Palmer" , rohit@cs.UMD.EDU, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Giant Sized Ethernet Packets In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:50:02 EDT." <199609191250.IAA27562@whizzo.transsys.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:00:48 +0200 Message-ID: <2739.843138048@critter.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199609191250.IAA27562@whizzo.transsys.com>, "Louis A. Mamakos" writ es: >Being able to support FDDI MTUs would eliminate needless fragmentation >which is very time consuming to perform in routers. I'd love to have >FDDI (or larger!) size MTU support in Fast Ethernet VLSI. I think that >this is likely going to be part of Gigabit ethernet as it develops, and I don't think FDDI MTU is enough. I would expect 9180 to be the next good step, since it allows 8k NFS to stay in one packet for instance. I belive this is the standard for SMDS & ATM and other new media. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.