Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet

Thu Apr 12 22:09:56 UTC 2007

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
> >> 2. It's no longer necessary to manage 1500 byte+ MTUs manually
> >
> >But for this, there has been (for a long time now) a DHCPv4 option
> >to give a client its MTU for the interface being configured (#26,
> >RFC2132).
> 
> Trying to do this via DHCP is, IMO, doomed to failure. The systems 
> most likely to be in need of larger MTUs are likely servers, and 
> probably not on DHCP-assigned addresses.

If you're bothering to statically configure a system with a fixed
address (such as with a server), why can you not also statically
configure it with an MTU?

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.	-- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070412/b6d31a51/attachment.sig>