Re: setting mtu size on a 2611
he additional overhead of fragmenting and >reassembling > > > large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason >never > > > to set the DF bit, I suppose. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf >Of > > > Robert John Lake > > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM > > > To: Clark, Jason > > > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > Subject:Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > > > serious issues if you do. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > Good Morning > > > > > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving >the > > > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user >settable > > > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > > > interfaces? > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > > -- >-- > > > -- > > > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > > > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > > > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > > > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > > > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > > > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > > > > -- >-- > > > -- > > > Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation > > > > -- >-- > > > -- > > > > > > ___ > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ___ > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > > >___ >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: setting mtu size on a 2611
Eric, I wanted to follow up on this one. I've done a bit of reading since my original post and your response. I do not have access to the original Frame Relay Forum FRF.12 document ( alas, it costs 60 bucks, and I have hungry teenage boys to feed :-< ) Now if I understand what I read, both in Gil Held's and Elliott Lewis' excellent books, along with the material I can find at www.frforum.com, the FRF.12 standard provides a means for "normalizing" ( if you will ) packet flow across frame relay by fragmenting large, usually data, packets into smaller sizes, so that small voice packets are better able to flow across the WAN, without being delayed by large data packets. FRF.12 provides the mechanism for interleaving voice and data packets, so that 1) voice packets are regularly sent. one voice packet, one data packet, one voice packet, etc and 2) the data packets may still be slightly larger than the voice packets. Yes, this is different than changing the MTU, but both techniques, it would seem to this observer, effectively result in the same thing - smaller data packets so that vocie traffic does not suffer as a result of data traffic across the same device. I suppose this harkens back to the inherent divergent interests of voice and data people. There is a discussion over on the NANOG list ( ongoing for several days now ) regarding the desire for larger than 1500 byte MTU's on core switches. Much larger. Yet throughout Held's book, I keep seeing the concern expressed regarding large data packets. We also had a discussion here on groupstudy a few weeks back about why the ATM cell size is 48 bytes. Answer - a compromise between the voice side who wanted 32 byte cells and the data side who wanted 96 byte cells ( if memory serves ) To get back to my report as to what a particular instructor said in class, yes, he stated that in projects he had worked on, one way he solved problems caused by large data packets delaying small voice packets was to change the MTU. He also said that other things could be done, such as priority or custom queueing, or by adding a second pvc with a particular CIR, and running voice only across that pvc. I suppose the question remains - how does one balance the desire for efficient transfer and movement of data across the wan, or the internet, against the desire to get clear and recognizable voice across the wan or the internet? My reading indicates to me, at least, that there continues to be much discussion about this. Chuck books referenced: Gil Held - Voice & Data Networking Elliot Lewis - Configuring Cisco Voice Over IP Eric Waguespack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > They, (we) don't recommend changing the mtu, we DO recommend Configure Multilink > > PPP with Interleaving /FRF.12 fragmentation setup rules for Voice over IP > connections over Frame Relay. > > -Eric > > Chuck Larrieu wrote: > > > One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to > > speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and > > this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller > > MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay > > when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs don't have to > > wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = better voice > > quality. > > > > I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor > > did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was highly efficient > > and did not cause data services to denigrate. > > > > I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling > > large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason never > > to set the DF bit, I suppose. > > > > Chuck > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > Robert John Lake > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM > > To: Clark, Jason > > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject:Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > > > Hi, > > > > Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > > serious issues if you do. > > > > Robert > > > > "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > > > Good Morning > > > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > > interfaces? > > > > > > TIA > >
RE: setting mtu size on a 2611
Here's some food for thought on reducing MTU (in an Ethernet network environment)... You have 1500 bytes of data, with 26 bytes of framing overhead (preamble, source/destination addressing, type/length field and CRC). Let's put one frame containing "voice" to follow after this data goes through an Ethernet interface. Think of the delay that might be encountered. Now, let's take that same 1500 bytes of data, break it up into 48 byte (ATM payload size) chunks. To transport this same 1500 byte payload, 32 transport frames are required--each appended with 26 bytes of framing overhead. The router will now process over 2200 bytes of data and 32 frames instead of 1526 bytes contained on one frame. For comparison, let's let the router process the frame of "voice" after all 32 frames of data have been processed. Which would you suspect would have a higher degree of latency? While prioritization of traffic could be used to ensure the packet of "voice" is processed before the 32 packets of data, why not start with prioritization as a mechanism rather than changing the MTU? As alluded to, a smaller MTU results in an increased overhead:data ratio resulting in a less efficient transport network. This increases the latency on your network for other applications. A few years ago, Alteon Networks spearheaded an initiative to increase the payload size of Ethernet lessening the ratio of overhead to data transport--in much the same manner used in 16 Mbps token-ring networks. While it was accepted by many vendors (including Cisco), it didn't gain much momentum, having been overshadowed by the development of the Gigabit standard amongst other things. It's an interesting technology (and political challenge) that's well worth the read. -- Leigh Anne > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Chuck Larrieu > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:02 PM > To: Robert John Lake; Clark, Jason; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > > One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to > speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and > this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller > MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay > when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs > don't have to > wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = > better voice > quality. > > I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor > did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was > highly efficient > and did not cause data services to denigrate. > > I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling > large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more > reason never > to set the DF bit, I suppose. > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Robert John Lake > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM > To: Clark, Jason > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > Hi, > > Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > serious issues if you do. > > Robert > > > > "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > Good Morning > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > interfaces? > > > > TIA > > > > Jason > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -- > -- > -- > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > -- > -- > -- > Cisco S
Re: setting mtu size on a 2611
They, (we) don't recommend changing the mtu, we DO recommend Configure Multilink PPP with Interleaving /FRF.12 fragmentation setup rules for Voice over IP connections over Frame Relay. -Eric Chuck Larrieu wrote: > One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to > speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and > this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller > MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay > when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs don't have to > wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = better voice > quality. > > I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor > did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was highly efficient > and did not cause data services to denigrate. > > I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling > large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason never > to set the DF bit, I suppose. > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Robert John Lake > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM > To: Clark, Jason > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject:Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > Hi, > > Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > serious issues if you do. > > Robert > > "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > Good Morning > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > interfaces? > > > > TIA > > > > Jason > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > > -- > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > > -- > Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation > > -- > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: setting mtu size on a 2611
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/voice_c/vcprt1/vcvoip.htm#xtocid101136 * Multilink PPP Configuration Example The following example defines a virtual interface template that enables Multilink PPP with interleaving and a maximum real-time traffic delay of 20 milliseconds, and then applies that virtual template to the Multilink PPP bundle: interface virtual-template 1 ppp multilink encapsulated ppp ppp multilink interleave ppp multilink fragment-delay 20 ip rtp reserve 16384 100 64 multilink virtual-template 1 *** Michael Fountain wrote: > This is kinda vague, but I know there is a 'fragment' type command that can > be used when running VOIP to break down larger packets into smaller ones so > that the large packets do not slow down the little ones. > > I can't remember the command exactly, its out there on CCO somewhere, but I > remember that it had 'fragment' in it, instead of trying to drop the MTU. > > Hope that will help some. > > > > >One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to > >speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and > >this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller > >MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay > >when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs don't have to > >wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = better voice > >quality. > > > >I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor > >did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was highly > >efficient > >and did not cause data services to denigrate. > > > >I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling > >large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason > >never > >to set the DF bit, I suppose. > > > >Chuck > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > >Robert John Lake > >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM > >To:Clark, Jason > >Cc:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >Subject: Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > > >Hi, > > > >Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > >serious issues if you do. > > > >Robert > > > > > > > >"Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > > > Good Morning > > > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > > interfaces? > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > ___ > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- > > > >-- > > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > > > >-- > >Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation > > > >-- > > > >___ > >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >___ > >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: setting mtu size on a 2611
This is kinda vague, but I know there is a 'fragment' type command that can be used when running VOIP to break down larger packets into smaller ones so that the large packets do not slow down the little ones. I can't remember the command exactly, its out there on CCO somewhere, but I remember that it had 'fragment' in it, instead of trying to drop the MTU. Hope that will help some. > >One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to >speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and >this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller >MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay >when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs don't have to >wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = better voice >quality. > >I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor >did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was highly >efficient >and did not cause data services to denigrate. > >I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling >large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason >never >to set the DF bit, I suppose. > >Chuck > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >Robert John Lake >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM >To:Clark, Jason >Cc:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > >Hi, > >Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into >serious issues if you do. > >Robert > > > >"Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > Good Morning > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > interfaces? > > > > TIA > > > > Jason > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-- > >-- > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > >-- >Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation > >-- > >___ >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >___ >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: setting mtu size on a 2611
One reason might be a move to voice over IP. While I am not really up to speed on this yet, I recently attended Cisco sponsored AVVID training, and this was a point that was made. On the internal network, having a smaller MTU helps greatly on the voice over side. Voice packets suffer less delay when data packets are smaller rather than larger. Voice packs don't have to wait around for large data packets to go through. Less delay = better voice quality. I asked specifically about the issues on the data side, and the instructor did point out that ATM, with a packet size of 53 bytes, was highly efficient and did not cause data services to denigrate. I suppose there is the additional overhead of fragmenting and reassembling large packets. And a major issue if the DF bit is set. One more reason never to set the DF bit, I suppose. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Robert John Lake Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:58 AM To: Clark, Jason Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 Hi, Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into serious issues if you do. Robert "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > Good Morning > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > interfaces? > > TIA > > Jason > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels -- Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation -- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: setting mtu size on a 2611
Yeah, I know it's not a good idea to change the MTU. The reason I am doing this is for testing purposes for a customer. I am trying to test out PMTU discovery. Basically I want to change the MTU to 1450 on the router and then enable PMTUD on a Solaris box and configure Solaris with the default MTU of 1500 and have the two devices negotiate the MTU to 1450. Thanks Jason > -Original Message- > From: Robert John Lake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 11:58 AM > To: Clark, Jason > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: setting mtu size on a 2611 > > > Hi, > > Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into > serious issues if you do. > > Robert > > > > "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > > > Good Morning > > > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am > receiving the > > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support > user settable > > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > > interfaces? > > > > TIA > > > > Jason > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -- > > Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | > Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| > Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | > Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. > De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s > B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels > -- > > Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation > -- > > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: setting mtu size on a 2611
hi jason, u can only change the mtu on WAN interfaces, not LAN int's (ethernet, TR). maqsood -Original Message- From: Clark, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 10:03 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: setting mtu size on a 2611 Good Morning I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet interfaces? TIA Jason ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: setting mtu size on a 2611
Hi, Why do you want to change the MTU size You are going to walk into serious issues if you do. Robert "Clark, Jason" wrote: > > Good Morning > > I am trying to manually set the MTU size on a 2611 and am receiving the > following message % Interface Ethernet0/0 does not support user settable > mtu." Is it not possible to manually set the MTU size on Ethernet > interfaces? > > TIA > > Jason > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Robert LAKE MSc - Customer Support Engineer | | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phone : +32 2 704 5434 ||| ||| Fax : +32 2 704 5804 | | Parc Pegasus ..:|||:...:|||:.. De Kleetlaan, 6C i s c o S y s t e m s B-1831 - Diegem - Belgium Euro TAC - Brussels -- Cisco Systems - Empowering the Internet Generation -- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
