On Friday, October 25, 2013 04:39:57 AM Nick Hilliard wrote: > I aim towards a 9100 byte ip mtu, in order to guarantee a > 9000 byte MTU for customers with plenty of overhead on > our side. Sometimes this isn't possible due to third > party provider core link restrictions.
We are a Cisco and Juniper house. To match things, we run 9,192 bytes on Juniper and IOS XR- based Cisco platforms, as well as 9,178 bytes on IOS and IOS XE-based Cisco systems. We have noted that some Juniper SDH/SONET line cards require you to set the MTU at the address family level (inet, inet6, iso and mpls) for the MTU to take effect. You'd normally apply it at the global interface level and each address family would infer what it needs, but not on SDH/SONET line cards. This issue does not affect Ethernet line cards. Cisco FE ports tend to not support Jumbo frames (except SPA's on the XR 12000 and CRS systems), but Juniper have no issue supporting Jumbo frames on FE ports. Suffice it to say, I haven't used FE ports anywhere for nearly 5x years now. Several Cisco switches will top out at 9,000 bytes. Not much you can do about that if you have them. However, newer platforms shipping now do up that to be inline with what we prefer now. 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/
