[131907] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Hargrave)
Sun Nov 7 03:36:04 2010
From: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMM6S8eCm1V=GjEQ=5+6MOx6xeja7xea++DZFF@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:35:57 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:29, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange =
points.
> 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 =
indicating
> their ability to transparently support jumbo frames through their =
fabrics, or at=20
> least indicate a roadmap and a timeline to when they think they'll be =
able to
> support jumbo frames throughout the switch fabrics.
At LONAP we've been able to support jumbo frames (at 9000+ depending on =
how you count it) for some years. We have been running large MTU p2p =
vlans for members for some time - L2TP handoff and so on. What we don't =
do is support >1500byte MTU on the shared peering vlan, and I don't see =
this changing anytime soon. There isn't demand; multiple vlans split =
your critical mass even if you are able to decide on a lowest common =
denominator above 1500.
I imagine the situation is similar for other exchanges (apart from =
Netnod as already mentioned).
I won't bother to further reiterate the contents of =
<20101106203616.GH1902@gerbil.cluepon.net>; others can just read Ras's =
post for a concise description. :-)
--=20
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd
