IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Tunneling overheads and fragmentation

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Tue, 11 September 2007 21:54 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVDh2-0000wt-KI; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVDh1-0000wo-5s for ram@iab.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:47 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVDh0-0008D1-0j for ram@iab.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:47 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,240,1186372800"; d="scan'208";a="131671608"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2007 17:54:43 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8BLsjXe025584; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:45 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8BLsjBY012222; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:54:45 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:45 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([10.82.241.129]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:54:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <A1E7B28B-17AD-42EB-8CBB-743B9558A359@muada.com>
References: <469F7673.6070702@firstpr.com.au> <20070720140433.GA69215@Space.Net> <46A21AD6.2060501@firstpr.com.au> <0857530C-5C9D-4D29-ACAB-16A99CBFD929@muada.com> <46E6992D.2090501@firstpr.com.au> <46E6F514.1030206@gmail.com> <DCE587FE-A4E1-48AB-B378-44A163E2C227@muada.com> <186FA279-5A25-4F50-8CBA-57CD9FDAA925@cisco.com> <A1E7B28B-17AD-42EB-8CBB-743B9558A359@muada.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <78BE8AF3-82FC-4B47-A89A-F67704D89377@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Tunneling overheads and fragmentation
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:54:46 -0700
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2007 21:54:45.0069 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D5D07D0:01C7F4BE]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=439; t=1189547685; x=1190411685; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RRG]=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20Tunneling=20overheads=20and=2 0fragmentation |Sender:=20 |To:=20Iljitsch=20van=20Beijnum=20<iljitsch@muada.com>; bh=hMIzI/tacLFGohbMsd6o4l8Oq2U3S0nkX7ThSNqoF2I=; b=tqPa7eLiHM+pDIkSNP/duuqW5kS2xV+GcVEeY6gUqY6Zjp4ESUeLYVDOIS1ntjBRBO81rkS9 37d9Pwtjqln6kW8i+dUtaMIwW8GHdgH7xjSFoImCdApPacF7C2R1vimt;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Cc: RAM Mailing List <ram@iab.org>, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

> But what about inter-ISP links? I'm assuming this isn't a big issue  
> for high capacity private peering, but here in Europe a lot of  
> peering happens over exchanges, which obviously use equipment that  
> can easily handle larger packets, but so many people are on a big  
> fat shared subnet that it's a given at someone will bring down the  
> lowest common denominator to 1500.

All GigE and higher. We are okay.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email