[188120] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Wed Mar 9 13:59:57 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD9ANpe46J8a=QQ6TMJ3JM=ceKE3ajknv5TWs1rqCm4i=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:59:45 +0000
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9 Mar 2016, at 18:29, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> It's not a novel idea, IXPs already do active polling, even ARP
> sponges. In a competitive market, hopefully customers will choose the
> IXP operator who knows how to ensure minimal pain for the customers.
There is a critical difference between these two situations. In the case of a=
n arp sponge, the ixp operator has control of both the polling and the worka=
round. In the case of mtu management they would only have control of the pol=
ling, not the remediation. The point I was making is that an ixp operator ca=
n only control their own infrastructure. Once it's someone else's infrastruc=
ture, all you can do is make polite suggestions.
Nick
