On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, George Bonser <gbon...@seven.com> wrote: > ... > As for the configuration differences between units, how does that change > from the way things are now? A person configuring a Juniper for 1500 > byte packets already must know the difference as that quirk of including > the headers is just as true at 1500 bytes as it is at 9000 bytes. Does > the operator suddenly become less competent with their gear when they > use a different value? Also, a 9000 byte MTU would be a happy value > that practically everyone supports these days, including ethernet > adaptors on host machines.
While I think 9k for exchange points is an excellent target, I'll reiterate that there's a *lot* of SONET interfaces out there that won't be going away any time soon, so practically speaking, you won't really get more than 4400 end-to-end, even if you set your hosts to 9k as well. And yes, I agree with ras; having routers able to adjust on a per-session basis would be crucial; otherwise, we'd have to ask the peeringdb folks to add a field that lists each participant's interface MTU at each exchange, and part of peermaker would be a check that could warn you, "sorry, you can't peer with network X, your MTU is too small." ;-P (though that would make for an interesting deepering notice..."sorry, we will be unable to peer with networks who cannot support large MTUs at exchange point X after this date.") Matt
