Point to Point Ethernet

Anton Kapela tkapela at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 18:04:20 CDT 2009


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermann<nanog-list at nrg4u.com> wrote:

> Do you think this is useful?  Maybe vendors will hear me/us.

They sort of did a few decades back, created HDLC (5 bytes minimum)
and PPP (6 bytes minimum) for P2P links. I think you're at risk of
over-thinking this problem working in reverse from ethernet to
something slightly-less-than-ethernet.

Further, if we want to get truly sizable improvement from 'ethernet
like p2p paradigm' we can *drop the damn IFG and preample.*

http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/

Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e.
No matter how you slice it, it's not getting better than what we've
already got (i.e. p2p link prots).

Though, I do somewhat relate to your disgust and general sentiments.
In 2009 I have cheap asics that can recover clock from line code alone
and we're not doing CSMA/CD, so what's the freaking point of IFG and
preamble? ./rhetorical (see lanhy vs. wanphy)

-Tk




More information about the NANOG mailing list