[95991] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David W. Hankins)
Thu Apr 12 18:11:13 2007
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:09:56 -0700
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070412174541.06a14320@senie.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--sHrvAb52M6C8blB9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
> >> 2. It's no longer necessary to manage 1500 byte+ MTUs manually
> >
> >But for this, there has been (for a long time now) a DHCPv4 option
> >to give a client its MTU for the interface being configured (#26,
> >RFC2132).
>=20
> Trying to do this via DHCP is, IMO, doomed to failure. The systems=20
> most likely to be in need of larger MTUs are likely servers, and=20
> probably not on DHCP-assigned addresses.
If you're bothering to statically configure a system with a fixed
address (such as with a server), why can you not also statically
configure it with an MTU?
--=20
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
--sHrvAb52M6C8blB9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGHq40cXeLeWu2vmoRAjMCAKCukwkLj2LNE6HSfBPGZO3RDtL90QCfao+y
vQ+ZIDGUn2gTwpatqdVXljo=
=G4xj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--sHrvAb52M6C8blB9--
