nanog mailing list archives

RE: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet


From: "Leigh Porter" <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:52:30 +0100



I don't think it matters that everything can use jumbograms or that every single device on the Internet supports them. 
Heck, I still know networks with kit that does not support VLSM!

What would be good is if when a jumbogram capable path on the Internet exists, jumbograms can be used.

This way it does not matter than some box somewhere does not support anything greater than a 1500 byte MTU, anything 
with such a box in the path will simply not support a jumbogram. How do you find out? Just send a jumbogram across the 
path and see what happens.. ;-)

--
Leigh Porter
UK Broadband


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu on behalf of Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Sent: Fri 4/13/2007 3:36 PM
To: Saku Ytti
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet
 
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.


Current thread: