In my personal view, networks like this are a fact of life. One
frequently is handed things by disparate people with disparate
budgets, responsibilities, and requirements. For example, perhaps IT
provides the switch, the router is what the managed-service ISP
installed several years ago and still works, and the servers are what
the department bought for this nifty-keeno application they're in the
process of installing.
Hence, path MTU is a question of what's on the path for a session,
not something else.
On Jul 22, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
BTW, suppose following netowrk.
Internet
|
ROUTER
|
| 100BASE-TX / MTU=1500
|
GbE-SWITCH
| |
| | 1000BASE-T / MTU=9018
| |
HOST1 HOST2
HOST1, HOST2 and GbE-SWITCH support 1000BASE-T and Jumbo Frames, but
ROUTER has only 100BASE-TX interfaces and doesn't support Jumbo
Frames.
In my personal view, having devices on shared media with different
MTU's is just a bad idea. Trying to get it to work is complicated
and I think it will have lots of nasty failure cases. If one wants
to have mixed speeds (like the example above) then use the default
MTU (i.e., 1500) or replace the GbE-Switch with a Router. If one
wants Jumbo Frames, then make sure all of the nodes on the link
support 1000Base-T.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
