>
> For a 7200 with FE ports this translates into:
>
> mpls mtu 1546
But not PA-(2)FE-TX(-ISL) or IO-(2)FE because they have an inbuilt 1530B
"on the wire" limitation
>
> Please see discussion regarding this from ~1 year back.
>
___
cisco-nsp mai
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Ray Burkholder wrote:
When people define these MTU sizes, what does this size include? The
payload? The ip header? Layer 2 header? Some documentation seems
murky on this issue.
Depends on the platform. Several networks I have been working on has been
standardised to
> Also the 3560/3750 series support jumbo frames up to "only" 9000 bytes.
When people define these MTU sizes, what does this size include? The
payload? The ip header? Layer 2 header? Some documentation seems murky on
this issue.
When working with MTU changes necessary for MPLS operation,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:50 +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We've standardized on 9,000 bytes on all our switches and routers,
> especially so because we are both a C & J house.
>
> Different line cards that support different values, different switch
> models within C that support different values, are
On Thursday 23 July 2009 04:13:51 am Brandon Applegate
wrote:
> I still think I'm
> going to proclaim that jumbo == 9000 to make it easier
> for server / storage guys to remember anyway :)
We've standardized on 9,000 bytes on all our switches and
routers, especially so because we are both a C &
Brandon Applegate wrote:
I think I figured (part of) this out. Packets to the router != packets
through the router. Trying to ping something on the far side with
packet size of 9188/9216 gets me the expected icmp frag @ 9212. I still
think I'm going to proclaim that jumbo == 9000 to make it
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Brandon Applegate wrote:
I know this has been covered, at least in part on this list before, and I
have read those posts. However, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what
is happening internally (or rather on the wire) in the various scenarios.
Scenario #3
=
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 02:37:16PM -0400, Brandon Applegate wrote:
> >I'd bet that the linux box is not sending full-sized 9220 packets, but
> >fragmenting inside.
[..]
> Yes I have my MTU cranked up in linux and am doing all of this
> intentionally as a test. Unless tcpdump is lying to me,
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 02:16:29PM -0400, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Scenario 3 really gets me though. Why doesnt it complain and tell me icmp
frag to 9212 or something ? Isnt the frame 9220 when it's all said and
done ? Is the router fragmenting t
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 02:16:29PM -0400, Brandon Applegate wrote:
> Scenario 3 really gets me though. Why doesnt it complain and tell me icmp
> frag to 9212 or something ? Isnt the frame 9220 when it's all said and
> done ? Is the router fragmenting this in software at the 'mpls level' a
I know this has been covered, at least in part on this list before, and I
have read those posts. However, I'm still trying to wrap my head around
what is happening internally (or rather on the wire) in the various
scenarios.
Scenario #1
===
10 gig interface (ES20 CXL based) - default
11 matches
Mail list logo
