Jumbo frame Question

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Fri Nov 26 11:55:31 CST 2010

On (2010-11-26 12:39 -0500), Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> That's only half the calculation.  The *other* half is if you have gear that
> has a packets-per-second issue - if you go to 9000 MTU, you can move 6 times as
> much data in the same packets-per-second. Anybody who's ever had to
> trim a complicated ACL list because it saturated the CPU knows what I mean.
Academically speaking interesting topic, of course the actual time to copy
the packet is not constant, so you are not going to see linear increase in
bandwidth. It would be very nice to see graph of say VXR with long enough
ACL to cap 1500B rate very low and then see results of different packet
sizes of 3000, 6000, 9000.
If this is something you regularly need to operationally consider, do you
happen to have such numbers and if not would it be too much of work for you
to provide the numbers?

In my world, we've been running hardware lookup engines since 2003, so we
really don't need to care about features affecting lookup speed.


More information about the NANOG mailing list