On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:52 PM Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Last email was the main point I wants to get across. Now to answer your > questions inline. > > > On Dec 6, 2021, at 4:28 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > > > Having said that, this is not caused by addressing itself, right? > > Right, IMHO. > > > Certainly large addresses eat a lot of that MTU space. > > Well true as well as overlay encapsulation. > > > I wonder if we are able to describe this as a possible way to add features. > > Assuming we are able somehow to get rid of the MTU issue, it seems we gain > > a degree off freedom, how this translates specifically for the addressing? > > I think the question is Luigi is, does the user notice an improvement in > network performance by sending larger packets?
Dino, Definitely at least for a limited domain. For instance, AFAIK Google is using 9K MTUs in their internal networks. Whether the benefits of a larger MTU scales to the whole Internet is probably still an open question, however QUIC seems to require at least an MTU of 1280 bytes so there are some attempts to enforce a baseline MTU for the Internet greater than the specified minimums (at least greater than 64 bytes or 576 bytes for IPv4 MTU minimums. Tom > > If so then the MTU issues we see as geeks at the network layer should be > fixed. But note it’s hard (read: really hard if not impossible) to upgrade > the underlay. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
