The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below) If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-... Best Regards, Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be: http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000. Best, -M< On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-...
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Btw, I would like to see PVLAN implemented if possible. It's not just for big IXPs, its for all. And MICE is getting big regardless. The compliance pieces fit well here IMHO. OIX-1 is an open standard; IXP's can choose to either be compliant or be certified. Ether way, it's open and recommended. Best, -M< On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:12 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty@AKAMAI.COM> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-...
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. s On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty@akamai.com> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM <javascript:;>> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-...
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com <javascript:;> Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- *Shaun Carlson*Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible. In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone. I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope. Owen On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson@ARVIG.COM> wrote:
The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes.
The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames.
That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application.
s
On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty@akamai.com> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-...
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
--
Shaun Carlson Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either. Best, -M< On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend@HE.NET> wrote:
I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible.
In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone.
I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson@ARVIG.COM> wrote:
The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes.
The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames.
That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application.
s
On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty@akamai.com> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_-...
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
--
Shaun Carlson Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To be clear: the exchange doesn't support jumbo frames everywhere at the moment but it is our intention to add support. It isn't that there is demand, we just don't want the exchange to silently drop traffic should two members want to exchange traffic at a larger MTU. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE MTU If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either. Best, -M< On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend@HE.NET> wrote:
I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible.
In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone.
I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson@ARVIG.COM> wrote:
The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes.
The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames.
That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application.
s
On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty@akamai.com> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Mart in_Levy_-_IX_Jumbo_Frames_-_RIPE64_EIX-WG_-_Slovenia.pdf
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
--
Shaun Carlson Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Anthony, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg@NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote:
To be clear: the exchange doesn't support jumbo frames everywhere at the moment but it is our intention to add support. It isn't that there is demand, we just don't want the exchange to silently drop traffic should two members want to exchange traffic at a larger MTU.
Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE MTU
If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend@HE.NET> wrote:
I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible.
In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone.
I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson@ARVIG.COM> wrote:
The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes.
The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames.
That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application.
s
On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty@akamai.com> wrote:
Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/
If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA).
We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000.
Best,
-M<
On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch@TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below)
If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange.
While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Mart in_Levy_-_IX_Jumbo_Frames_-_RIPE64_EIX-WG_-_Slovenia.pdf
Best Regards,
Andy Koch TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch@tdstelecom.com Desk: 608-664-4694 Cell: 608-616-0072
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
--
Shaun Carlson Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson@arvig.com
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:29:38PM +0000, Koch, Andrew wrote:
The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000?
I don't know if this number came from anybody technical, or somebody just stuck it in there as a desire to move to? The Juniper switch stack is NOT configured for an MTU of 9000. Nor is the Mankato extension. dmcintyre@MICE-SW1> show int | match MTU Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, Speed: 10Gbps, Duplex: Full-Duplex, ... every other interface matching MTU ... In Juniper speak, MTU of 1514 == 1500 of Cisco (and just about everybody else). So, if anybody has thought of doing Jumbo frames, it isn't supported at the core Juniper switch stack without updating the config. The CMS switch may be different. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
participants (6)
-
Anthony Anderberg -
Doug McIntyre -
Hannigan, Martin -
Koch, Andrew -
Owen DeLong -
Shaun Carlson