Talk:Jumbo frame

message: *It would be very helpful if a frame structure of jumbo frame is illustrated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.226.53 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ~Kvng (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: frame structure and example

message: I'd suggest that it would make more sense to
* merge the content in Jumbo Frames into Jumbogram
* change Jumbo Frames to be a redirect to Jumbogram
* add Jumbo frames as a redirect also
Both articles are very short at present, and there's more scope for developing Jumbogram into a fully-fledged article than the more specific jumbo frames topic.
Jon Dowland 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the term "jumbogram" any better than "jumbo frame"? If anything, "jumbo frame" is in much wider use. Look at the sources in this article, and look at the settings for your NICs and switches, if the options are there. If the option isn't merely listed as "MTU size", I bet it'll be "jumbo frames." I say, if anything, merge "jumbogram" into this article. --UNHchabo 07:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How are jumbogram's possible without jumbo frames? Surely to have large payloads, you need the underlying OSI layers to also support the concept. Considering jumbo frames ("frame" being the common reference for layer 2 packets, "(data)gram" being for layer 3 and higher) is a more fundamental concent and requirement, why not have that as the article, with a section about jumbograms being a use of them (eg jumbo frames allowing the use of jumbograms) — Lee Carré 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumbograms (IPv6 only) are specifically possible at L3 if the data is packaged into multiple L2 ethernet (or other) frames.  That is the point, IPv4 technically does not allow this, and the term "jumbo frame" as defined here is the name for the way to package larger-than-allowed IPv4 packets (i.e. >1500 bytes).  Jumbo frames and jumbograms are not to be confused with packet MTU, which is a physical-layer limitation (1518 bytes for ethernet).  Large MTUs are defined per-vendor, and to use them violates 802.3, so it is very proprietary in implementation (though coincidentally usually compatible). The term "jumbo frame" is occasionally used, especially among non-technical people (i.e. managers), for L2 packets that are >1518 bytes, but that is a colloquialism in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of whoever wrote the main article). Tdcrone 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion 

message: I don't believe the pages for Jumbo Frames and Jumbograms should be merged.  They are not at all the same thing.  Jumbo frames are an extension of the 802.3 hardware specification and are part of the MAC layer of the protocol stack (I am still looking for the hardware spec for jumbo frames).  Jumbo frames are also applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6.  The term jumbograms is quite clearly defined as part of the IPv6 layer of the Internet protocol stack.
It is unfortunate that both terms have "jumbo" in them as they are really very separate things.  It is true that both Wikipedia pages are quite small, now, but that is because they are missing a lot of information, not because they should be merged. Hrob 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are jumbogram's possible without jumbo frames? Surely to have large payloads, you need the underlying OSI layers to also support the concept. Considering jumbo frames ("frame" being the common reference for layer 2 packets, "(data)gram" being for layer 3 and higher) is a more fundamental concent and requirement, why not have that as the article, with a section about jumbograms being a use of them (eg jumbo frames allowing the use of jumbograms) — Lee Carré 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumbograms (IPv6 only) are specifically possible at L3 if the data is packaged into multiple L2 ethernet (or other) frames.  That is the point, IPv4 technically does not allow this, and the term "jumbo frame" as defined here is the name for the way to package larger-than-allowed IPv4 packets (i.e. >1500 bytes).  Jumbo frames and jumbograms are not to be confused with packet MTU, which is a physical-layer limitation (1518 bytes for ethernet).  Large MTUs are defined per-vendor, and to use them violates 802.3, so it is very proprietary in implementation (though coincidentally usually compatible). The term "jumbo frame" is occasionally used, especially among non-technical people (i.e. managers), for L2 packets that are >1518 bytes, but that is a colloquialism in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of whoever wrote the main article). Tdcrone 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend not merge Jumbo Frames and Jumbograms 

message: The Adoption section is confusing because it talks about Hamming distance and assorted checksums in upper layer protocols, without ever mentioning that the Ethernet CRC Hamming distance of 4 applies not just to standard 1500 byte frames, but also to 9k jumbo frames.  (The limit for HD=4 is 11453 bytes.) Paul Koning (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamming distance is discussed in Jumbo frame#Error detection and a similar number (114,663 bits) is mentioned but is not explained. ~Kvng (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamming distance 

message: Is it "Baby giant" or "Baby jumbo"? There is in consistent wording in that section. --Pelago (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Either but I've edited things so that Baby giant is the primary term for the purposes of this article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baby giant" or "Baby jumbo"?