On Tue Sep 20 07:52:58 2016, Todd Goodman wrote:
> MTU is per network interface but you really don't want to end up having
> your router fragment every IP packet because systems on your subnet are
> using a larger MTU.
>
> Todd
You will not fragment every packet, the PMTUd will do his job and
On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 12:57:00 Grant wrote:
> > Leaving your MTU at the default ethernet size of 1500 on your PC/server
> > should not cause a problem for most day to day operations, because modern
> > end-point OS and network devices use Path MTU Detection. Problems will
> > arise when you come
> Leaving your MTU at the default ethernet size of 1500 on your PC/server should
> not cause a problem for most day to day operations, because modern end-point
> OS and network devices use Path MTU Detection. Problems will arise when you
> come across a misconfigured router/firewall/server
On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 19:38:02 David Haller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Grant wrote:
> >>>Strangely, I'm able to ping with that command even with a very high -s
> >>>value:
> >>>
> >>>$ ping -c 4 -M dont -s www.dslreports.com
> >>>PING www.dslreports.com (64.91.255.98)
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Grant wrote:
>>>Strangely, I'm able to ping with that command even with a very high -s value:
>>>
>>>$ ping -c 4 -M dont -s www.dslreports.com
>>>PING www.dslreports.com (64.91.255.98) (10027) bytes of data.
>>>10007 bytes from www.dslreports.com
>>Strangely, I'm able to ping with that command even with a very high -s value:
>>
>>$ ping -c 4 -M dont -s www.dslreports.com
>>PING www.dslreports.com (64.91.255.98) (10027) bytes of data.
>>10007 bytes from www.dslreports.com (64.91.255.98): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54
>>time=331 ms
>>10007
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Grant wrote:
[..]
>> $ ping -n -c 1 -M dont -s 1465 www.dslreports.com
>> PING www.dslreports.com (64.91.255.98) 1465(1493) bytes of data.
>> 1473 bytes from 64.91.255.98: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=137 ms
>>
>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
>>> MTU is per network interface but you really don't want to end up having
>>> your router fragment every IP packet because systems on your subnet are
>>> using a larger MTU.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>
>>That makes sense. So in my case, I'm thinking 1492 MTU on every
>>interface in the network.
>>
>>So I'm
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Grant wrote:
>> MTU is per network interface but you really don't want to end up having
>> your router fragment every IP packet because systems on your subnet are
>> using a larger MTU.
>>
>> Todd
>
>That makes sense. So in my case, I'm thinking 1492 MTU on every
* Grant [160920 08:53]:
> >> > A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
> >> > drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues
> >> > disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our
> >> > modem/router. Today
>> > A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
>> > drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues
>> > disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our
>> > modem/router. Today I read that AT DSL requires a 1492 MTU so I
>> >
>> Rather than guess and take random values read on the net - measure it.
>>
>> Google calculate mtu - netgear and others show ways to test upstream to
>> get the ideal size using ping
>>
>> You are looking for the largest MTU value before fragmentation starts to
>> occur.
>
> See
* wabe [160919 20:50]:
> Grant wrote:
>
> > A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
> > drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues
> > disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:34:32AM +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote
>
> Rather than guess and take random values read on the net - measure it.
>
> Google calculate mtu - netgear and others show ways to test upstream to
> get the ideal size using ping
>
> You are looking for the largest MTU value
On 09/20/16 10:35, wabe wrote:
> Grant wrote:
>
A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the
issues disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU
on our
Grant wrote:
> >> A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
> >> drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the
> >> issues disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU
> >> on our modem/router. Today I read that AT DSL
>> A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
>> drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues
>> disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our
>> modem/router. Today I read that AT DSL requires a 1492 MTU so I
>> increased the
Grant wrote:
> A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried
> drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues
> disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our
> modem/router. Today I read that AT DSL requires a
18 matches
Mail list logo