nanog mailing list archives
RE: mtu question
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim () brandontek com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:23:54 -0500
Jack brings up a good point. MTU is basically pointless since packets never traverse any real interface....... So in theory the size can be anything...
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:02:22 -0600 From: jbates () brightok net To: deric.kwok2000 () gmail com Subject: Re: mtu question CC: nanog () nanog org On 11/17/2010 11:08 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:Hi I just see that the mtu in lo is different from standard eth 1500 Any meaning of it?You transfer huge amounts of data on loopbacks similar to sockets. Supporting large MTU's is appropriate, and given the virtual nature of loopbacks, is probably generally designed to handle the buffers that transfer the data.How about cisco / juniper loopback? Thank you so muchJuniper M120: Type: Loopback, MTU: Unlimited Cisco 7206 12.2SRE: MTU 1514 bytes, BW 8000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 5000 usec, Jack
Current thread:
- mtu question Deric Kwok (Nov 17)
- Re: mtu question Owen DeLong (Nov 17)
- Re: mtu question Jack Bates (Nov 17)
- RE: mtu question Brandon Kim (Nov 17)
- Re: mtu question Mark Smith (Nov 17)
- RE: mtu question Brandon Kim (Nov 17)
- RE: mtu question Brandon Kim (Nov 17)
- Re: mtu question Pete Lumbis (Nov 17)