[131858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Sat Nov 6 17:25:15 2010
From: Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMM6S8eCm1V=GjEQ=5+6MOx6xeja7xea++DZFF@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:25:00 +0100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--=-oBzNYVtsJyA9fXuA3GoR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 =C3=A0 13:29 -0700, Matthew Petach a =C3=A9crit =
:
> 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. The 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 po=
ints.
> >
>=20
> Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX,=
LINX,
> DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indic=
ating
> 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 abl=
e to
> support jumbo frames throughout the switch fabrics.
Agree. Some people do: Netnod. ;) (1500 in one option, 4470 in another,
part of a single interconnection deal -- unless I'm mistaken about the
contractual side of things).
mh
>=20
> Matt
--=-oBzNYVtsJyA9fXuA3GoR
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)
iEYEABECAAYFAkzVx6cACgkQZNZ/rrgsqaecyQCfVobn+9pZtb2bk58vpq3MU/c0
YP8AniU4zF4jTsz2laXb92/0zmmJAgmj
=Ns2t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-oBzNYVtsJyA9fXuA3GoR--
