Re: [RAM] Tunnelling & GigE jumbo frame size

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

> Well obviously we shouldn't be saying "9k MTU" because it is too  
> imprecise. Also, it's irrelevant unless we're trying to come up  
> with a unified MTU size, which is something I am very much against,  
> as it doesn't solve the problem but only moves the goalposts. We  
> need to move to a situation where the capability to use larger  
> packets is used where it exists and to the degree that it exists.

I will change the reference in the LISP spec from "jumbo frames of  
9000 bytes" to "jumbo frames of 9180 bytes". Will be reflected in the  
next ID update.

Dino

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