nanog mailing list archives
Re: MTU of the Internet?
From: Eric Osborne <osborne () notcom com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:37:33 -0500 (EST)
There are all sorts of people spouting all sorts of lies around Windows newsgroups about why small MTUs are good; I think novice users are simply getting drawn in by supposed experts.Such as?
I don't think it's an issue of lies about why small MTUs are good, but the fact that if joe random user is told "576 is good", then they assume that anything different is _bad_. We all know that there's good reasons for all sorts of different MTUs, mainly because of the different types of traffic you could have - there's always going to be a tradeoff between efficient transfer of large blocks of data and immediaecy (sp?) of response time. The problem with anything Microsoft may put forth is that it'll read like "576 is good. It is the best. We do it. So should everybody. If 576 is good, all else must be bad." And that's simply not the case. eric
Current thread:
- Re: MTU of the Internet?, (continued)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Stephen Wolff (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? David Bowie (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Joseph Malcolm (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Fletcher E Kittredge (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Alex Bligh (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Phil Howard (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Marc Slemko (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Sean M. Doran (Feb 08)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Eric Osborne (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Perry E. Metzger (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Tony Li (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Jim Dixon (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Eric Osborne (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Frank Kastenholz (Feb 05)