IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 22 October 2011 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6ED21F8A62 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B6jOaMhZZoqR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632B621F854F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p9M4mRYq011421 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:27 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1319258907; bh=275Yq8eBpAHAEvVLdkIT/yZDyxw=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=X0zrGiGcJR19JhfkdPip+uuBjnKVJJhB3RzfhKvD4bVNVEUIUzlJlIihJKuFnZ5YN uhOYw4+Khs1NVMMCI5V8g==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=Ve2Uu6zx4H6htKBAx/YMX1RBoMJqz/rOGwg9MXC3gjIyAzWR7QvIBXmavgfF0HAsT JLlbNtXIQdo3BTcu+HUdw==
Received: from vcbfk14 (vcbfk14.prod.google.com [10.220.204.14]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p9M4mPFx016164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:26 -0700
Received: by vcbfk14 with SMTP id fk14so6927304vcb.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=iXNZqqPfZwrw6KfB8A3E+bAcGB8P11DRQTV3GAfMFBw=; b=B+RBtqqs2pwJJsxa0nn40994Ezd68C0QEjai1I2TE+7mcBxHxz78wZ9T7l/fkX74Nh wQ4JwJR0iZ1IVzuJbOjw==
Received: by 10.150.113.5 with SMTP id l5mr15603140ybc.30.1319258905263; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.113.5 with SMTP id l5mr15603129ybc.30.1319258905110; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.96.7 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0F5D8352-7A20-46BF-867B-DBBF36CF0B01@apple.com>
References: <4E974F1A.2030008@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3030A4156@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130390@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E98CCB2.2050100@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031303D8@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E994515.6020204@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130B54@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130C12@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E9E8706.6050006@forthnetgroup.gr> <39D5D616-6E56-46B1-B773-437184567E60@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3SRRjk4fjg1WkUZSQ6rRT2+dY5p-wjtEiA5SFvx4kqGA@mail.gmail.com> <0F5D8352-7A20-46BF-867B-DBBF36CF0B01@apple.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:48:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1-gc6N16LKZzAg07ZVv2A6JhDVKd5iYoa4ohXR43QJCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd5cbc667e8c504afdbe6f4"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:48:31 -0000

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 01:13, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:

> Yes, if the upstream MTU is lower than the default LAN link MTU. Otherwise
> you'll experience latency issues whenever you connect to a new host on the
> Internet.
>
>
> Because, as we all know, hosts on the LAN never ever communicate directly
> with one another at full media speeds using jumbo frames, as they all
> require every last one of their interactions to be mediated by the Cloud
> Buzzphrase Horsefeathers in the Sky™ or the terrorists win.
>

That's not the point. The point is how much traffic do you send / receive
from the Internet and how much from local hosts, and what is the performance
penalty of lowering the MTU from (say) 1500 to 1480 for either. Do you
really use jumbo frames? All my devices have ethernet MTUs of 1500.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email