Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Maybe breaking v4 in the process? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


----- Original Message -----

From: "Kurt Kraut via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick () foobar org> 
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 8:50:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames? 

2016-03-09 11:45 GMT-03:00 Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>: 

> this has been tried before at many ixps. No matter how good an idea it 
> sounds like, most organisations are welded hard to the idea of a 1500 
> byte mtu. Even for those who use larger MTUs on their networks, you're 
> likely to find that there is no agreement on the mtu that should be 
> used. Some will want 9000, some 9200, others 4470 and some people 
> will complain that they have some old device somewhere that doesn't 
> support anything more than 1522, and could everyone kindly agree to that 
> instead. 



Hi Nick, 


Thank you for replying so quickly. I don't see why the consensus for an MTU 
must be reached. IPv6 Path MTU Discovery would handle it by itself, 
wouldn't it? If one participant supports 9k and another 4k, the traffic 
between them would be at 4k with no manual intervention. If to participants 
adopts 9k, hooray, it will be 9k thanks do PMTUD. 

Am I missing something? 


Best regards, 


Kurt Kraut