On Friday, April 27, 2012 04:56:02 PM Colin Whittaker wrote:
> 9000 for IP mtu provided to end users / customers is a
> nice round number.
>
> I have started using 9100 as the internal mtu as it
> leaves 100 bytes for any encap overhead you might want
> from mpls/gre/etc and is easy to remember.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:40:43AM -0500, Eric Helm wrote:
>
>
> On 4/26/2012 4:32 PM, OBrien, Will wrote:
> > We've been pushing out jumbo frames across our new core lately. Right now
> > I've got multiple boxes from multiple vendors that all support different
> > maximum MTUs.
> >
> > Exampl
On 4/26/2012 4:32 PM, OBrien, Will wrote:
> We've been pushing out jumbo frames across our new core lately. Right now
> I've got multiple boxes from multiple vendors that all support different
> maximum MTUs.
>
> Example: Juniper MX960/480, Nexus 7009, Nexus 5k/2k, Catalyst 4900,
> Nortel/Ava
On 04/27/2012 12:33 AM, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
I usually set the interface physical MTU as high as it goes (per
device), but manually set protocol inet to MTU 1500 (for things like
We do almost this (physical -> max), but set IP MTU to 9100 rather than
default 1500. The latter is helpful if you
On (2012-04-27 09:33 +1000), Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> I usually set the interface physical MTU as high as it goes (per device), but
> manually set protocol inet to MTU 1500 (for things like OSPF to work). This
> allows for as-large-as-MTU-as-MPLS-can-do. Other address families aren't that
> picky
On 4/26/2012 5:32 PM, OBrien, Will wrote:
Anyone have suggestions for a best practice MTU? (That is over 9000?!)
You know before you go about changing MTUs to something over 9000, you
might want to take a look at this youtube video. These two guys talk
about the pros and cons of setting
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note™, an AT&T LTE smartphone
Original message
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Best practice MTU?
From: Jack Bates
To: Chris Kawchuk
CC: Re: [j-nsp] Best practice MTU?
I agree, as long as the transport between devices supports the MTU. This
is especi
I agree, as long as the transport between devices supports the MTU. This
is especially important with device interoperability. Cisco, for
example, apparently pads out ISO hello packets to MTU (Juniper limits it
to maximum ISO packet size). If the packet is discarded by transport
medium, the ISI
I usually set the interface physical MTU as high as it goes (per device), but
manually set protocol inet to MTU 1500 (for things like OSPF to work). This
allows for as-large-as-MTU-as-MPLS-can-do. Other address families aren't that
picky about MTU matching.
ge-1/0/5 {
description "LINK to
We've been pushing out jumbo frames across our new core lately. Right now I've
got multiple boxes from multiple vendors that all support different maximum
MTUs.
Example: Juniper MX960/480, Nexus 7009, Nexus 5k/2k, Catalyst 4900,
Nortel/Avaya 8600 All different maximums.
Anyone have suggest
10 matches
Mail list logo
