nanog mailing list archives

Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)


From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:05:19 -0600

On 11/8/2010 4:08 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Anyway, all of the arguments for it, both pro and con, have been rehashed
on this thread.  The bottom line is that for most companies, it simply
isn't worth the effort, but that for some NRENs, it is.


I think a lot of that is misinformation and confusion. A company looks at it and thinks of the issues deploying it to end users, and misses the benefits of deploying it at the core only handling special requests. This is especially true for hosting companies, where a majority of connections to servers need to stay at low MTU to keep things streamlined, but for specific cases could increase MTU for things such as cross country backups. Many servers can handle these dual MTU setups.

Larger MTU is beneficial when someone controls the 2 endpoints and has use for it. They can request for the larger MTU connection with their providers/datacenters, but if the core systems aren't supporting it, they'll die miserably.


Jack


Current thread: