[188142] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Wed Mar 9 19:44:11 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:44:07 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPbn28ki8Bk9uiP3n0yhamk_AkdNWpYyy-uAhiG2ZWMZWEnR+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* nanog@nanog.org (Kurt Kraut via NANOG) [Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:59 CET]:
>I'm pretty confident there is no need for a specific MTU consensus
>and not all IXP participants are obligated to raise their interface
>MTU if the IXP starts allowing jumbo frames.
You're wrong here. The IXP switch platform cannot send ICMP Packet
Too Big messages. That's why everybody must agree on one MTU.
>So we have Tier-1 backbones moving jumbo frames around continents,
>why in a controlled L2 enviroment that usually resides in a single
>building and managed by a single controller having jumbo frames is
>that concerning?
Because the L3 devices connected to it aren't controlled by a single entity.
-- Niels.
