Subject: Re: [homegate] Jumbo frames

From: Joe St Sauver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:18:12 -0700

Kirk mentioned:

#DOCSIS 3.0 still uses 1518 octet framing, no jumbo support. Without giving
#out all the secrets, speed boost is a token bucket scheme which is 
#supplemented with PCMM dynamic gate control. The boost comes from a 
#different sub-layer than the one you may be thinking of.

Stipulated (virtually all home connectivity is still 1.5K MTU); I'd like 
to make sure we're correctly positioned for future revs where that may 
no longer be the case for all least some subset of home connectivity. 

If not, some years down the line we'll hear, "Well, we could take the WAN
transport to 9K frames, but none of the home gateways will support it," 
just as the comment now is/might hypothetically be, "Well, we could take 
the home gateways to 9K framess, but none of the WAN transport supports 
it." Classic chicken/egg deployment deadlock I suppose.

Nonetheless, if the home gateway device is conceptualized as including
a multiport 10/100/1000 switch as well as whatever else may be present,
sure like to at least see at least optional jumbo frame support for 
those integrated gig-capable ports.

Regards,

Joe

---

From: "Erichsen, Kirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:23:33 -0400

Point taken on your chicken and egg problem. But if you are going to do jumbo frames, why stop at 9K? For a vendor building a gateway with off the shelf components, 12K capability is reasonably common, though it may be locked out in the software build that operates the MAC.
 
-KE

________________________________

From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 6/16/2009 11:18 AM
To: Erichsen, Kirk
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [homegate] Jumbo frames

Kirk mentioned:

Regards,

Joe

P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:27:26 -0400

Dear Joe;

Is there a definition yet for Jumbo frames ? I thought that IEEE  had  
said no to this.

Without a SDO-supported definition, I think that wide deployment and  
interoperation are problematic.

Your own web site, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/jumbo-clean-gear.html
shows what a mess this is in the absence of a standard.

Regards
Marshall

On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Joe St Sauver wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
>