[36929] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: jumbo frames
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Hares)
Thu Apr 26 12:00:30 2001
From: "David Hares" <dhares@networktwo.net>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Cc: "Dzh-Marc" <dzh-marc@fw.networktwo.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:57:08 -0400
Message-ID: <OKEDJGFADPJBOBIMOKCFEEMCDHAA.dhares@networktwo.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104260843580.22115-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
We use it extensively, since all we do is VPNs, and path MTU discovery is
broken in too many places. This allows us to carry unfragmented 1500 byte
packets inside tunnels. It does mean you have to get all the 10 & 100 Mb
ethernet paths out of the picture. FDDI, GigE, ATM, Frame, PPP p2t, token
ring (gag #!@) are alternatives.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:44 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: jumbo frames
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> >
> > John Fraizer wrote:
> >
> > > We do on router-router links internally.
> >
> > Why?
>
> In case of tunneling it's nice not to have to resort to fragmentation.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
>
