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

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Mon Nov 8 17:05:19 CST 2010

On 11/8/2010 4:08 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Anyway, all of the arguments for it, both pro and con, have been rehashed
> on this thread.  The bottom line is that for most companies, it simply
> isn't worth the effort, but that for some NRENs, it is.

I think a lot of that is misinformation and confusion. A company looks 
at it and thinks of the issues deploying it to end users, and misses the 
benefits of deploying it at the core only handling special requests. 
This is especially true for hosting companies, where a majority of 
connections to servers need to stay at low MTU to keep things 
streamlined, but for specific cases could increase MTU for things such 
as cross country backups. Many servers can handle these dual MTU setups.

Larger MTU is beneficial when someone controls the 2 endpoints and has 
use for it. They can request for the larger MTU connection with their 
providers/datacenters, but if the core systems aren't supporting it, 
they'll die miserably.


More information about the NANOG mailing list