[131932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Nov 8 16:51:57 2010
To: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:36:49 +0100."
<20101108183648.GK15266@besserwisser.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:51:12 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1289253072_5585P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:36:49 +0100, Mans Nilsson said:
> Given this empirical data, clearly pointing to the fact that It Does
> Not Matter, I think we can stop this nonsense now.
That's right up there with the sites that blackhole their abuse@
address, and then claim they never actually see any complaints.
Or forcing NAT at the edge, and saying "The fact we get no complaints
means It Does Not Matter", ignoring SCTP and similar use cases where
it *does* matter.
If in fact It Does Not Matter, why did the Internet2 folks make any
effort to support 9000 end-to-end?
http://proj.sunet.se/LSR2/index.html says they used an MTU of 4470.. and then
add "and we used only about half the MTU size (which generates heavier CPU-load
on the end-hosts)", which pretty much implies the previous record was at 9000 or
so.
So there's empirical data that It Does Indeed Matter (at least to some
people).
--==_Exmh_1289253072_5585P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFM2HDQcC3lWbTT17ARAtH6AJwJ1OvhWURPdA9GXeTCUie0ZSEeJQCdH8IL
46c4bguEHJFPdk8Psz70Jvk=
=gIwO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1289253072_5585P--
