[188096] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Wed Mar 9 09:53:33 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 08:53:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPbn28kHTxBvXgOiguxcXp8+d15+LHXcqmFUBZ-61t3vfJ7dzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Maybe breaking v4 in the process?=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Kraut via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org>=20
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 8:50:23 AM=20
Subject: Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?=20
2016-03-09 11:45 GMT-03:00 Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>:=20
> this has been tried before at many ixps. No matter how good an idea it=20
> sounds like, most organisations are welded hard to the idea of a 1500=20
> byte mtu. Even for those who use larger MTUs on their networks, you're=20
> likely to find that there is no agreement on the mtu that should be=20
> used. Some will want 9000, some 9200, others =EF=BB=BF=EF=BB=BF4470 and s=
ome people=20
> will complain that they have some old device somewhere that doesn't=20
> support anything more than 1522, and could everyone kindly agree to that=
=20
> instead.=20
>=20
Hi Nick,=20
Thank you for replying so quickly. I don't see why the consensus for an MTU=
=20
must be reached. IPv6 Path MTU Discovery would handle it by itself,=20
wouldn't it? If one participant supports 9k and another 4k, the traffic=20
between them would be at 4k with no manual intervention. If to participants=
=20
adopts 9k, hooray, it will be 9k thanks do PMTUD.=20
Am I missing something?=20
Best regards,=20
Kurt Kraut=20
