Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

Saku Ytti saku at
Wed Mar 9 22:08:06 UTC 2016

On 10 March 2016 at 00:01, Nick Hilliard <nick at> wrote:

> Other people would be fine with 1522 core because that suits both their
> needs and equipment limitations.  So what do you do?  Go with 9100
> because it suits you, or 9000 because that's what lots of other people
> use?  Or 4470 because of history?  Or 1522 because that enables you to
> pad on some extra headers and get 1500 payload, and works for more
> people but is too meh for others to contemplate?  Or 9000 and some slop
> because you commit to carrying 9000 payload on your network, whereas
> other people only commit to 9000 total frame size?

I don't think it's super important. IXP will do what they think is
best for the coreMTU.

> And how truly awful some equipment is that people install at IXPs?

People with awful kit are free to do edgeMTU only.

> but you haven't solved the human problem.  The IXP operator does not
> have enable on IXP participant routers.

Member may puke L2 loop to IXP, you must have some channel to deal
with your customers. If that channel fails you quarantine the VLAN or
shut down the port.
If you cannot have any communication with your members I can see how
this seems like particularly difficult problem.


More information about the NANOG mailing list