[67159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petri Helenius)
Tue Feb 3 14:55:08 2004
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:53:30 +0200
From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402031906540.1968-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>>Why large MTU then? Most modern ethernet controllers don´t care if you´re
>>sending 1500 or 9000 byte packets. (with proper drivers taking advantage of
>>the features there) If you´re paying for 40 byte packets anyway, there is no
>>incentive to ever go beyond 1500 byte MTU.
>>
>>
>
>I think its partially due to removal of overhead and improvements you get out of
>TCP (bearing in mind it uses windowing and slow start)
>
>
>
Sure, if you control both endpoints. If you don´t and receivers have
small (4k,8k or 16k) window
sizes, your performance will suffer.
Maybe we should define if we´re talking about record breaking attempts
or real operationally
useful things here.
Pete
