[131851] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Sat Nov 6 16:29:35 2010
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C7D6@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:29:27 -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 1:22 PM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Last week I asked the operator of fairly major public peering points
>> if they 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
>
> There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange poin=
ts.
>
Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX, L=
INX,
DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicat=
ing
their ability to transparently support jumbo frames through their
fabrics, or at
least indicate a roadmap and a timeline to when they think they'll be able =
to
support jumbo frames throughout the switch fabrics.
Matt
