[37801] in North American Network Operators' Group
MTU sizing? was stealth blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu May 24 13:18:20 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200105241729.RAA02641@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:29:03 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010524115105.00ce8ab0@mail.waller.net> from "Albert Meyer" at May 24, 2001 12:00:21 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Ok, one thing I neglected to mention in my egregious abuse of public
trust earlier this week was that there are distinctly different
assumptions wrt IPv6 and MTU sizing than with IPv4.
While the archives show that there has been some discussion wrt
performance hits when there are mismatched MTUs on layer2 media,
it is unclear if there has been any consideration on mismatched
MTUs at layer3 (IP).
Thoughts?
--bill
