nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:46:26 -0700
Probably no reason at all, though probably little perceived benefit. 1492 is common enough that google/youtube already runs lower MTU's
just
to avoid common broken PPPoE setups (which often could run higher MTU, but weren't configured that way).
I run into that already with people doing various things inside their net (MPLS, GRE, IPIP?) that shorten the effective MTU but they block the ICMP unreachable packets and break PMTU discovery. That blanket blocking of ICMP unreachable type 3 code 4 is evil, in my opinion. If your traffic passes through a Cisco ASA series device (and maybe other vendors, too) your MTU is effectively 1380 anyway as that is the maximum MSS that it advertises (or can even be configured to advertise) when it establishes an outbound connection and in some versions of its code will drop a packet from an endpoint that doesn't honor the advertised MSS. It is a real performance killer across the Internet in my opinion and better performance could be had, particularly for long distance links where you are limited by the number of "in flight" packets if those packets could be bigger. The problem is that even if you have two end points that are jumbo capable, the networks in the path don't seem to support >1500 MTU. If everyone configured their peering and internal gear to support a 9216 byte frame size and set their MTUs to 9000, that change would be transparent to the connections flowing though it and people who wanted to send larger frames could do so without impacting anyone using a shorter size.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Matthew Petach (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Oct 23)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Nathan Eisenberg (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 24)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Jack Bates (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Leo Bicknell (Oct 24)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 24)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 24)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Leo Bicknell (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Ray Soucy (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Jack Bates (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses Daniel Roesen (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 21)
- RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 21)