Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 13:51, Servet Erkün wrote: > Nilesh is right  I think , in juniper you specify only payload size , > in cisco you specify full frame size (ip header+icmp header+Payload) On a Cisco-router: router#ping 10.60.200.1 size 100 repeat 1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 1

Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues.

> Nilesh is right I think , in juniper you specify only payload size , > in cisco you specify full frame size (ip header+icmp header+Payload) If you specify the MTU on the physical interface it definitely includes L2 overhead. For example, this is a GigE link with 4470 IP MTU: ge-0/2/0 { mt

Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues.

uesday, March 17, 2009 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues. I think it is inversed, cisco add the IP headers to the size you specified, and juniper include the IP header in the size you specified. the problem appears when the packet arrives juniper interface with packet size larger than the inte

Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues.

: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:27:55 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues. Cisco includes ip and icmp header size in the total specified packet size. Payload in the case is 1510-20-8 = 1482 bytes. Juniper adds icmp and ip header to the payload size you specify. So 1510

Re: [j-nsp] MTU issues.

Cisco includes ip and icmp header size in the total specified packet size. Payload in the case is 1510-20-8 = 1482 bytes. Juniper adds icmp and ip header to the payload size you specify. So 1510 becomes 1538 bytes of ip packet. Thanks, Nilesh On Mar 16, 2009, at 11:22 AM, "Flavio Schapp

[j-nsp] MTU issues.

Hi Anybody have some explanation doc about MTU diferences between JUNIPER and CISCO? I think that I´m hitting some MTU issues where I have 2 ciscos working ping with more them 1510 bytes and 2 Juniper or 1 juniper and 1 cisco are not working. Regards Flavio _