nanog mailing list archives
Re: PMTU and Broken Servers
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:48:22 +0200
* stephen () sprunk org (Stephen Sprunk) [Mon 12 May 2003, 19:24 CEST]:
Most network folk have found it's easier to provide 1500 MTU than to educate all of the server operators and end users as to what's going wrong with PMTU. This is also, IMHO, the only significant reason jumbo frames aren't in widespread use -- we have no reliable means of coping with networks that remain at 1500 MTU.
That was already the case when the FDDI MAEs were still in operation
with their 4470 byte MTUs, where the Gigaswitches didn't have IP
addresses they could send ICMP Fragmentation Needed messages from
when having to bridge large frames from FDDI to Ethernet...
Regards,
-- Niels.
Current thread:
- PMTU and Broken Servers Leo Bicknell (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Dalvenjah FoxFire (May 09)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers bdragon (May 10)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Curtis Maurand (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Stephen Sprunk (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Niels Bakker (May 13)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Curtis Maurand (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Curtis Maurand (May 12)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Joe St Sauver (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Jeff McAdams (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Leo Bicknell (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Mikael Abrahamsson (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Leo Bicknell (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Mikael Abrahamsson (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Richard A Steenbergen (May 08)
- Re: PMTU and Broken Servers Leo Bicknell (May 08)
