> I think the compatibility issue is the driver here. As long as there is > some way to phase in new gear to take advantage of the standard, without > breaking what is there now, MTU size could be increased to something > that > makes sense for the applications. With streaming media, application > sharing, > VoIP, and all the emerging apps, there is a need to increase the > efficiency > of the protocols. The larger the payload, assuming apps can take > advantage > of it, the more efficient the protocol (simplistically and generally > speaking). > vr > bob
That was my point, with the IEEE looking at a brand new generation of hardware for fiber to the home applications, if re-consideration of increasing MTU to something wich would be more optimal for an IPv6 FTTH world do not happen over the coming weeks, we'll be missing a great opportunity. There are no budge cycles here, no hubs to worry about, no intermediate routers that could not support the higher MTU. What we have here is a community of FTTH users with brand new gear doing peer to peer applications like high quality video conferencing. I'm trying to validate if the IPv6 routing header could be a good way to perform constraint-based routing without requiring the use of MPLS to perform this. -=Francois=-
