[131892] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Sat Nov 6 23:44:46 2010
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:44:38 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C7E8@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>,
"Niels Bakker" <niels=nanog@bakker.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > * gbonser@seven.com (George Bonser) [Sun 07 Nov 2010, 04:27 CET]:
> > >It just seems a shame that two servers with FDDI interfaces using
> > SONET
> >
> > Earth to George Bonser: IT IS NOT 1998 ANYMORE.
>=20
> Exactly my point. Why should we adopt newer technology while using
> configuration parameters that degrade performance?
>=20
> 1500 was designed for thick net. It is absolutely stupid to use it
for
> GigE or higher speeds and I do mean absolutely idiotic. It is going
> backwards in performance. No wonder there is still so much transport
> using SONET. Using Ethernet reduces your effective performance over
> long distance paths.
>=20
>=20
And by that I mean using 1500 MTU is what degrades the performance, not
the ethernet physical transport. Using MTU 9000 would give you better
performance than SONET. That is why Internet2 pushes so hard for people
to use the largest possible MTU and the suggested MINIMUM is 9000.
