On Thursday, June 02, 2011 08:49:51 AM Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Well first off I hope you actually meant "something LOWER > than 1500 bytes", since tcp-mss doesn't include the > headers that go into making up the 1500 byte IP packet.
But of course :-). > But more importantly, the maximum packet size for BGP is > limited to 4096 anyways, so the 9000 vs 9192 path mtu > really doesn't make any difference at all. :) Indeed. The larger MTU is not for BGP. The larger MTU is for customer requirements. My point was that for iBGP in the core of both these networks (which use different MTU's for inter-op reasons - one was an all-Juniper network, one wasn't), the Jumbo frame support tends to be useful. But not everyone may have this luxury. > I suppose I could also take this opportunity to gripe > about an ongoing bug where Juniper's TCP stack > occasionally thinks that the mss is ~64k, resulting in > blackholing of the tcp packets and endlessly > flapping sessions You mean even after you set an interface MTU and/or the 'tcp-mss' value? Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
