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

Sat Nov 6 21:25:00 UTC 2010

Le samedi 06 novembre 2010 à 13:29 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:22 PM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Last week I asked the operator of fairly major public peering points
> >> if they supported anything larger than 1500 MTU.  The answer was "no".
> >> >
> >>
> >> There's still a metric buttload of SONET interfaces in the core that
> >> won't go above 4470.
> >>
> >> So, you might conceivably get 4k MTU at some point in the future, but
> >> it's really, *really* unlikely you'll get to 9k MTU any time in the
> >> next
> >> decade.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> > There is no reason why we are still using 1500 byte MTUs at exchange points.
> >
> 
> Completely agree with you on that point.  I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX, LINX,
> DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicating
> their ability to transparently support jumbo frames through their
> fabrics, or at
> least indicate a roadmap and a timeline to when they think they'll be able to
> support jumbo frames throughout the switch fabrics.

Agree. Some people do: Netnod. ;) (1500 in one option, 4470 in another,
part of a single interconnection deal -- unless I'm mistaken about the
contractual side of things).

mh

> 
> Matt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20101106/4ed3a2cf/attachment.sig>