On Tuesday 29 June 2010 03:10:07 am Christopher E. Brown wrote: > That only works until aq high $$$ customer starts > demanding 9000byte payloads for their IP in vrf or VPLS > service...
We run two networks - one for IP Transit, another for national Metro-E (different companies, so don't think "NGN" or any of that marketing, hehe). We use 9,000 bytes for the IP Transit network, since the majority of our customers come in at 1,500 bytes (even though those ports run a higher MTU value), and the other end of their interest is also coming in at a typical 1,500 bytes (transit, peering hand-off, e.t.c.). On our Metro-E network, we've been running at 9,216 bytes, mostly because that's over 80% Juniper-based. The 3750ME's only talk 9,000 bytes (and yes, some customers have requested for even 9,200 bytes as payload - go figure). So we've been let down by the platform, but the edge has tended to dictate the direction. More recent platforms that we're deploying will be supporting higher MTU values in the edge, and not having to reconfigure the core is a plus. It just wasn't a problem in the past because IS-IS didn't need to extend into the access. Now it does, and we always want to avoid any trickery when abstracting MTU values between disparate links re: adjacency formations. The 9,000 bytes in our IP Transit network allowed us that uniformity, given the network's function and limitations in the access. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
