any particular reason for this? I meant you set 9192 & 9178? did you consider the mpls stack labeles or Layer 2 headers? or whatever, then finally you made this recommendation value?
On Saturday, October 26, 2013, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
