[29334] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (brett watson)
Sun Jun 18 02:20:28 2000
Message-Id: <200006180613.XAA17726@ug.mibh.net>
To: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:24:03 EDT."
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0006171012280.95120-100000@pkitty.e-gerbil.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:13:27 -0700
From: brett watson <bwatson@mibh.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> > At 22:46 16/06/00 , Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
> > > The common number that all
> > >those using jumbo frames should support is 9000 bytes (not 9k aka 9216).
> >
> > Disagree, for the reasons described in RFC-1626. The IP MTU
> > described in RFC-1626 has a number of advantages for hosts
> > using TCP, whether or not NFS is in use.
>
> That came out wrong, my point was that the number on all jumbo frame
> implementations should be no lower then 9000 bytes, not that this is the
> best possible number. Optimizing for NFS seems to be one of the lowest
> considerations on the list of important things though. :P
aren't two "well known" router vendors only supporting 8192 bytes?
-b
