Internet Exchanges supporting jumbo frames?

Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at
Thu Mar 10 09:33:00 UTC 2016

> On 9 Mar 2016, at 21:17, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Many IXPs have either looked at or attempted to build jumbo peering lans.  You can see how well they worked out by looking at the number of successful deployments.  The reason for this tiny number isn't due to lack of effort on the part of the ixp operators.
> I believe all IXP operators should offer higher MTU vlans, so that the ISPs who are interested can use them. If individual ISPs are not interested, then they don't have to use it. It's available if they gain interest.

In my experience many (most)  IXP members don’t want multiple VLANs as default as that drives up operational complexity. I am not saying they are right, I am just saying that is reality.

> The whole point of an IX is to be a market place where interested parties can talk to each other. The IXP should not limit (to reasonable extent) what services the ISPs can run across the infrastructure. If two ISPs need higher than 1500 MTU between them, then forcing them to connect outside of the IXP L2 infrastructure doesn't make any sense to me, when it's fairly easy for the IXP to offer this service.

Most IXPs offers private VLANs and I assume these can support any MTU size you want.

Best Regards,

- kurtis -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list