[67124] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Feb 3 09:53:05 2004
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:39:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
To: Terry Baranski <tbaranski@mail.com>
Cc: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000001c3ea60$24843530$0200000a@pleth0ra>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Terry Baranski wrote:
>
> > A more important question is what will happen as we move out
> > of the 1500 byte Ethernet world into the jumbo gigE world. It's
> > only a matter of time before end users will be running gigE
> > networks and want to use jumbo MTUs on their Internet links.
>
> The performance gain achieved by using jumbo frames outside of very
> specific LAN scenarios is highly questionable, and they're still not
> standardized. Are "jumbo" Internet MTUs seen as a pressing issue by
> ISPs and vendors these days?
Being a position to use a default mtu larger that 1500 would be nice given
the number of tunnels of varying varieties that have to fragment because
the packets going into them are themselves 1500 bytes... 4352 and 4470 are
fairly common in the internet today...
edge networks that are currently jumbo enabled for the most part do just
fine when talking to the rest of the internet since they can do path mtu
discovery... non-jumbo enabled devices on the same subnet with jumbo
devices become a big problem since they end up black-holed from the hosts.
adoption in the core of networks is likely easier than at the
end-user edges...
> -Terry
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu
GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
