[131847] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Sat Nov 6 16:01:58 2010
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C7D1@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:01:51 -0700
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:32 PM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
>> I doubt that 1500 is (still) widely used in our Internet... Might be,
>> though, that most of us don't go all the way to 9k.
>>
>> mh
>
> Last week I asked the operator of fairly major public peering points if t=
hey supported anything larger than 1500 MTU. =A0The answer was "no".
>
There's still a metric buttload of SONET interfaces in the core that
won't go above 4470.
So, you might conceivably get 4k MTU at some point in the future, but
it's really, *really* unlikely you'll get to 9k MTU any time in the next
decade.
Matt
