[131936] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Nov 8 18:05:23 2010
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:05:19 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CD874F5.2060206@foobar.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/8/2010 4:08 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Anyway, all of the arguments for it, both pro and con, have been rehashed
> on this thread. The bottom line is that for most companies, it simply
> isn't worth the effort, but that for some NRENs, it is.
>
I think a lot of that is misinformation and confusion. A company looks
at it and thinks of the issues deploying it to end users, and misses the
benefits of deploying it at the core only handling special requests.
This is especially true for hosting companies, where a majority of
connections to servers need to stay at low MTU to keep things
streamlined, but for specific cases could increase MTU for things such
as cross country backups. Many servers can handle these dual MTU setups.
Larger MTU is beneficial when someone controls the 2 endpoints and has
use for it. They can request for the larger MTU connection with their
providers/datacenters, but if the core systems aren't supporting it,
they'll die miserably.
Jack
