[132203] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: mtu question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Wed Nov 17 16:24:00 2010
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <jbates@brightok.net>, <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:23:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4CE442DE.1060107@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jack brings up a good point. MTU is basically pointless since packets never=
traverse any real interface.......
So in theory the size can be anything...
> Date: Wed=2C 17 Nov 2010 15:02:22 -0600
> From: jbates@brightok.net
> To: deric.kwok2000@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: mtu question
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> On 11/17/2010 11:08 AM=2C Deric Kwok wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I just see that the mtu in lo is different from standard eth 1500
> >
> > Any meaning of it?
> >
>=20
> You transfer huge amounts of data on loopbacks similar to sockets.=20
> Supporting large MTU's is appropriate=2C and given the virtual nature of=
=20
> loopbacks=2C is probably generally designed to handle the buffers that=20
> transfer the data.
>=20
>=20
> > How about cisco / juniper loopback?
> >
> > Thank you so much
>=20
> Juniper M120: Type: Loopback=2C MTU: Unlimited
>=20
> Cisco 7206 12.2SRE: MTU 1514 bytes=2C BW 8000000 Kbit/sec=2C DLY 5000 us=
ec=2C
>=20
>=20
> Jack
>=20
=
