Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet
Douglas Otis
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Sat Apr 14 17:22:16 UTC 2007
On Apr 13, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> The biggest value in real practice is IMHO that the end systems
> deal with a lower interrupt rate when moving the same amount of
> data. That said, some who are asking about larger MTUs are asking
> for values so large that CRC schemes lose their value in error
> detection, and they find themselves looking at higher layer FEC
> technologies to make up for the issue. Given that there is an
> equipment cost related to larger MTUs, I believe that there is such
> a thing as an MTU that is impractical.
>
> 1500 byte MTUs in fact work. I'm all for 9K MTUs, and would
> recommend them. I don't see the point of 65K MTUs.
Keep in mind that a 9KB MTU still reduces the Ethernet CRC
effectiveness by a fair amount. Adoption of CRC32c by SCTP and iSCSI
has a larger Hamming distance restoring the detection rates for Jumbo
packets.
-Doug
More information about the NANOG
mailing list