| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
It will take a 75% majority to convert from the previously voted on objective. The current schedule is for the objectives, the PAR and the 5 criteria for the HSSG to be finalized at the July plenary.
Personally, I believe that increasing the FrameSize is not a good thing for the HSSG. Notice that the objective doesn't give an actual maximum and minimum size, rather it references the current standard. Given the time it could take to do this standard, another standard could be done to increase the FrameSize (making that the current standard). Why tie the FrameSize to a standards develop that may take 3 years and is primarily focused on 10G when a FrameSize standard could probably be developed in less time.
If there is truly interest in increasing the FrameSize, then that group should make a call for a study group and work to propose objectives, a PAR and 5 criteria.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx [SMTP:gwinn@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 2:39 PM
To: Booth, Brad
Cc: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
Subject: Jumbo Frames in 10GbE?
At 4:24 PM 99/6/17, Booth, Brad wrote:
>Just a small point. One of the objectives that passed with greater than
>75% in Coeur d'Alene was to "preserve minimum and maximum FrameSize of
>current 802.3 Std."
I don't know that the issue is going to stay decided all that long, based
on the recent article "Jumbo Frames gather support" (Jeff Caruso, Network
World, 14 June 1999, page 6), which states that IETF has published a
working document proposing that ethernet frames be made larger than the
current 1,500-byte maximum, the basic rationale being to reduce the packet
rate and thus load on packet-handling components of the system. In short,
this is a system issue, and cannot really be decided solely at the MAC
level.
If jumbo frames are to come, 10GbE would be a logical place to start.
The issue will ultimately be decided by an IEEE Ballot Group, not a
Plenary. If the market is really going to bigger packets, as this article
implies, it will be hard to resist.
Joe Gwinn
The above is in response to the following:
> >Issues 3 - Bit Error Rate
> >The assumption will be that this is 10-12. If someone wishes to
>challenge
> >this they should bring a presentation to the next meeting providing
> detailed reasoning why this needs to change.
>
> It strikes me that the issue of larger maximum packet sizes will likely
> come up, just as it did for GbE. If 10GbE goes to 9 KB packets,
>the design
> center BER would need to go to 10^-13 to maintain the same theoretical
> packet loss rate. I'm not sure how much effect this would have in
> practice, as most gigabit links achieve much better than 10^-12,
>if they
> work at all. Anyway, these items are ripe for debate and decision.
**** end of message ****