[188122] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aris Lambrianidis)
Wed Mar 9 14:37:12 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:37:06 +0100
From: Aris Lambrianidis <effulgence@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD8vJ1gOAbBERgNTZSxBuAjBrNX+VL+FvQBZPtew0TdvfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> If customer does not react, put it on quarantine VLAN. This can be
> automated too. Wrong MTU => open internal case, contact customers
> email, no customer response in N days, quarantine VLAN.
>
> Even the most outrageous success stories in the world, majority of the
> people would have said before attempting that it won't work, because
> that is safe and easy. And usually they are right, most things don't
> work, but it's very difficult to actually know without trying what
> works and what does.
> Luckily we have actual IXPs running big and small VLAN MTUs, even
> without this monitoring capability, and it Internet still works.
>
Imo, there is not enough value for an IXP to do such monitoring,
especially assuming we agree
on Richard Steenbergen's conclusion in his presentation.
Promoting that kind of monitoring as a differentiator will surely help
adding an extra bullet
point on marketing material, but will be a trivial part in the decision
process of a potential customer.
--Aris
