..@privaz.io.INVALID%3e>
Sent: 24 March 2021 10:33
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:users@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:users@cloudstack.apache.org>;
d...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:d...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Virutal Router MTU
H
m
3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
-Original Message-
From: Rafael del Valle
Sent: 24 March 2021 10:33
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: Virutal Router MTU
Hi
Hi Alex,
In our particular use case the Public Network is an SD WAN and we have a
requirement of slightly smaller MTU than the standard 1500.
I have assumed that our traffic will be encapsulated into something else before
delivery, I guess that is the reason for the requirement.
What would be
Hi R,
There's no ACS setting for the VR's MTU size.
Unless you are running storage traffic s in that network then jumbo frames
aren't of much use. I've ran some tests at the request of some customers in my
previous job, and with some very busy VRs and the performance gains for an MTU
of 9000 w
