North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: PMTU-D: remember, your load balancer is broken
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 8:07 AM > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:36:08 MDT, Marc Slemko said: > > It is also a concern that, in my experience, many of the links with > > MTUs <1500 are also the links with greater packet loss, etc. so > > you really don't want fragmentation on them. > > The worst part here is that I suspect that most of these > links (just on > sheer numbers of shipped product) are the aformentioned Win98 576-MTU. I just set my dial PPP ports to MTU=512+40=552, is this wrong? Where does the MTU=576 number come from? > I seem to remember that the *original* motivation for slow-start and > all that was Van Jacobson's observation that the most common cause of > a TCP retransmit was that an *entire* packet had been silently dropped > due to queueing congestion, and could thus be treated identical to > an ICMP Source Quench. > > Has this changed? Has "fragmentation" become a Great Evil, > rather than > an annoyance that some links have to deal with? I'm having some trouble getting full throughput from a GigE pipe. Even in the 100baseTX/FDX down-stream, I'm not getting full link utilization (everything on switches, Cat6509 and 3512XLs). I'm considering increasing MTU sizes to MTU=4096+40, or even larger. Most of the data transmissions fall into the 5KB-50KB range. The site can be considered a large portal. What would be the effect on my upstream? Would it create problems? The only systems that see the Internet are the web-servers (dual NICs).