That is why if you want robustness of connectivity with shortest paths, you need a static MTU of 1400 and an IPv4 underlay.
Dino > On Dec 6, 2021, at 4:28 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > Hello, > > I find the MTU discussion interesting. It pops up from time to time in > different mailing list, a clear sign that we lack a solution and the > discussion here show that there are different ideas of how the solution > should look like. > > Having said that, this is not caused by addressing itself, right? > Certainly large addresses eat a lot of that MTU space. > > I wonder if we are able to describe this as a possible way to add features. > Assuming we are able somehow to get rid of the MTU issue, it seems we gain a > degree off freedom, how this translates specifically for the addressing? > > Ciao > > L. > > > >>> On 4 Dec 2021, at 05:38, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> My point, which appears not to be tracking, is I *wish* protocol layers >>> didn’t have such strict MTUs, but rather expanded as headers were added *at >>> all layers*, in the same *spirit* as Ethernet does. >> >> The Internet can do this. Just make the MTU 1400. Then you can add up to 100 >> bytes of header. >> >> I have the opinion we don’t have an MTU problem. >> >> Dino >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
