Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

On 9 March 2016 at 22:56, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:

> - hardware problems

If we build everything on LCD, we'll have Internet where just HTTP/80
works on 576B. You can certainly find platform which has problems
doing else.

> - lack of interest among ixp participants outside individual pushers

They probably want faster horses.

> - lack of consensus about what MTU should be chosen

If we stop thinking of MTU as single entity and start thinking it as
edge MTU and core MTU, it becomes less important, as long as core MTU
covers overhead over edge.
I would go for 1500B edge, and 9100B core, but that's just me.

> - operational problems causing people to "temporarily disable
> connectivity until someone can take a look at it", i.e. permanently.

Vague. But ultimately this is what you will do always when issue is
not solved, sometime you just have to give up, 'ok far end is gone,
let's close this connection'.

> - additional expense in some situations

Vague. 'Sometimes something has some cost which is more than in some
other situation sometimes'.

> - the main peering lan worked fine, ie no overriding value proposition

> 99% Internet users likely are happy with 576B HTTP only INET. I'm not still comfortable accepting that it's only thing 
> Internet shoudl be.

> - pmtu problems

Immaterial, it is there regardless.

> - fragile and troublesome to debug when things went wrong

I've proposed automated, fully toolisable solution for IXP to verify
customers have correct config. People who don't want to deal with
this, who don't believe in this, can peer only over edgeMTU VLAN and
have completely same situation as today.

-- 
  ++ytti