nanog mailing list archives

Re: Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet


From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:28:46 +0200


On 12-apr-2007, at 16:04, Gian Constantine wrote:

I agree. The throughput gains are small. You're talking about a difference between a 4% header overhead versus a 1% header overhead (for TCP).

6% including ethernet overhead and assuming the very common TCP timestamp option.

One could argue a decreased pps impact on intermediate systems, but when factoring in the existing packet size distribution on the Internet and the perceived adjustment seen by a migration to 4470 MTU support, the gains remain small.

Average packet size on the internet has been fairly constant at around 500 bytes the past 10 years or so from my vantage point. You only need to make 7% of all packets 9000 bytes and you double that. This means that you can have twice the amount of data transferred for the same amount of per-packet work. If you're at 100% of your CPU or TCAM capacity today, that is a huge win. On the other hand, if you need to buy equipment that can do line rate at 64 bytes per packet, it doesn't matter much.

There are other benefits too, though. For instance, TCP can go much faster with bigger packets. Additional tunnel/VPN overhead isn't as bad.

Development costs and the OpEx costs of implementation and support will, likely, always outweigh the gains.

Gains will go up as networks get faster and faster, implementation should approach zero over time and support shouldn't be an issue if it works fully automatically.

Others mentioned ICMP filtering and PMTUD problems. Filtering shouldn't be an issue for a mechanism that is local to a subnet, and if it is, there's still no problem if the mechanism takes the opposite approach of PMTUD. With PMTUD, the assumption is that large works, and extra messages result in a smaller packet size. By exchanging large messages that indicate the capability to exchange large messages, form and function align, and if an indication that large messages are possible isn't received, it's not used and there are no problems.


Current thread: