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

Will Hargrave will at harg.net
Sun Nov 7 02:35:57 CST 2010

On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:29, Matthew Petach wrote:

>> 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.

At LONAP we've been able to support jumbo frames (at 9000+ depending on how you count it) for some years. We have been running large MTU p2p vlans for members for some time - L2TP handoff and so on. What we don't do is support >1500byte MTU on the shared peering vlan, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. There isn't demand; multiple vlans split your critical mass even if you are able to decide on a lowest common denominator above 1500.

I imagine the situation is similar for other exchanges (apart from Netnod as already mentioned).

I won't bother to further reiterate the contents of <20101106203616.GH1902 at gerbil.cluepon.net>; others can just read Ras's post for a concise description. :-)

Will Hargrave
Technical Director

More information about the NANOG mailing list