![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jumbo frame Question
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:26:30 +0200
On (2010-11-25 21:14 -0800), George Bonser wrote: Hey George,
9000 MTU internally. We don't deploy any servers anymore with MTU 1500. MTU 1500 is just plain stupid with any network >100mb ethernet.
I'm big proponent of high MTU, to facilitate user MTU of 1500 while adding say GRE or IPSEC overhead. But calling it plain stupid to run MTU of 1500 is quite the over statement. irb(main):001:0> 1460.0/(38+1500) => 0.949284785435631 irb(main):002:0> 8960.0/(38+9000) => 0.991369772073468 irb(main):003:0> You are theoretically winning 4.2%, which works only internally in your network, so maybe you'll be able to capitalize on that 4.2% on backup traffic or so. Doesn't seem like that critical win to be honest. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Jumbo frame Question Harris Hui (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Hank Nussbacher (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Jon Meek (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Richard Graves (RHT) (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question George Bonser (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Saku Ytti (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Brandon Kim (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Randy Bush (Nov 26)
- RE: Jumbo frame Question George Bonser (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 26)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question John Kristoff (Nov 29)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Jack Bates (Nov 29)
- Re: Jumbo frame Question Douglas Otis (Nov 29)