I prefer much less packet loss in a majority of my transmissions,
which
in turn brings those numbers closer together.
Jack
True, though t the idea that it greatly reduces packets in flight for a given amount of data gives a lot of benefit, particularly over high latency connections. Considering throughput <= ~0.7 * MSS / (rtt * sqrt(packet_loss)) (from http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html) and that packet loss to places such as China is often greater than zero, the benefits of increased PMTU become obvious. Increase that latency from 20ms to 200ms and the benefits of increased MSS are obvious. The only real argument here against changing existing peering points is "all peers must have the same MTU". So far I haven't heard any real argument against it for a new peering point which is starting from a green field. It isn't going to change how anyone's network behaves internally and increasing MTU doesn't produce PMTU issues for transit traffic. It just seems a shame that two servers with FDDI interfaces using SONET long haul are going to perform much better on a coast to coast transfer than a pair with a GigE over ethernet long haul simply because of the MTU issue. Increasing the bandwidth of a path to GigE shouldn't result in reduced performance but in this case it would. At least one peering point provider has offered to create a jumbo VLAN for experimentation.