Re: Standard MTU for SJFs and support for MEF 3.0 AI payloads
"Majdi S. Abbas via NANOG" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 07:25:11PM +0000, Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt via NANOG wrote: > Hi Friends! -snip- > Is 9530 a good value? What would you configure? (Am I simply overthinking this?) Given the long tail, and life of equipment in carrier Ethernet networks in particular, I'd probably still be configuring 9192-9216ish in many environments. Additional tag space could be nice*, but few have the luxury of greenfield builds where all the equipment is new. Folks are typically working with a least common denominator around 9192 to 9216, just in case a frame has to traverse something unexpected. Most customers are well conditioned today to ask for 9000, but not neccesarily more. * It's probably also worth noting that as long as equipment vendors only support N nested tags/labels, additional MTU might not be a huge help by itself. --msa _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VXLAX6RR67UJTJ3SH5ON52TWKUPOH3X5/