[96007] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Apr 13 10:37:46 2007
To: Saku Ytti <saku+nanog@ytti.fi>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:22:49 +0300."
<20070413052249.GB8361@mx.ytti.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:36:53 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1176475013_12938P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:22:49 +0300, Saku Ytti said:
>
> On (2007-04-12 20:00 -0700), Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> > From a practical side, the cost of developing, qualifying, and selling
> > new chipsets to handle jumbo packets would jack up the cost of inside
> > equipment. What is the payback? How much money do you save going to
> > jumbo packets?
>
> It's rather hard to find ethernet gear operators could imagine using in
> peering or core that do not support +9k MTU's.
Note that the number of routers in the "core" is probably vastly outweighted
by the number of border and edge routers. There's a *lot* of old eBay routers
out there - and until you get a clean path all the way back to the source
system, you won't *see* any 9K packets.
What's the business case for upgrading an older edge router to support 9K
MTU, when the only source of packets coming in is a network of Windows
boxes (both servers and end systems in offices) run by somebody who wouldn't
believe an Ethernet has anything other than a 1500 MTU if you stapled the
spec sheet to their forehead?
For that matter, what releases of Windows support setting a 9K MTU? That's
probably the *real* uptake limiter.
--==_Exmh_1176475013_12938P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFGH5WFcC3lWbTT17ARArjyAKC83/GGfinOZJB0InRtK+EYbeZzwgCeLt0c
bLhnmEg9sSqm6D6w7U11y7E=
=/Q2Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1176475013_12938P--
