Agreed. It doesn't happen often but every once in a while you see this.
Years ago I had two vendors "interpret" the RFC for VRRP differently on
the same broadcast domain. Complete trainwreck. Move along. Nothing to
see here....
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 5/29/2012 7:14 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 02:06:00 PM -Hammer- wrote:
One thing that I recently suffered thru regarding this is
how your vendors define "jumbo". In a single vendor shop
like Cisco, you may define 9000 to your end devices and
9216 to your switching to account for overhead. But
other vendors treat jumbo differently and some (Yes,
this is 2012) don't support it. Recently I had a multi
vendor environment where one of the larger core vendors
didn't support it. The result was that any performance
gain from the entire solution was really sacrificed by
the fact that one of the vendors would issue PMTUD and
knock the frame down to 1500 regardless. Make sure you
confirm the feature/function thru all your touchpoints
and are actually going to benefit from it.
This is one of the reasons that while we embrace multi-
vendor topologies, we stick to as few as possible (two, in
our case).
Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
