[131856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Sat Nov 6 17:17:42 2010
From: Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMb_JpuXiZ6_CZJPGd60oXAbdk8B=a3D-ZP7F7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:17:21 +0100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--=-p8T7Duq9C1orf0RJYyLa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 =C3=A0 13:01 -0700, Matthew Petach a =C3=A9crit =
:
> 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=
they supported anything larger than 1500 MTU. The answer was "no".
> >
>=20
> There's still a metric buttload of SONET interfaces in the core that
> won't go above 4470.
>=20
> 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.
Right, though I'm unsure of "decade" since we're moving off SDH/Sonet
quite agressively.
mh
>=20
> Matt
--=-p8T7Duq9C1orf0RJYyLa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAkzVxdoACgkQZNZ/rrgsqadlOACcCXv73Uv1U2DgFqN/9KCq0ICx
M+EAn1a5670amcA1Qhba3dNE/w7DBZPo
=X+Bu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-p8T7Duq9C1orf0RJYyLa--
