|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Petri Helenius wrote: > Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > >>Why large MTU then? Most modern ethernet controllers don´t care if you´re > >>sending 1500 or 9000 byte packets. (with proper drivers taking advantage of > >>the features there) If you´re paying for 40 byte packets anyway, there is no > >>incentive to ever go beyond 1500 byte MTU. > >> > >> > > > >I think its partially due to removal of overhead and improvements you get out of > >TCP (bearing in mind it uses windowing and slow start) > > > Sure, if you control both endpoints. If you don´t and receivers have small > (4k,8k or 16k) window sizes, your performance will suffer. > > Maybe we should define if we´re talking about record breaking attempts or real > operationally useful things here. By definition of this discussion about using large MTU we are assuming that packets are arriving >1500 bytes and therefore that we do have control of the endpoints and they are set to use jumbos Steve
|