On 9 March 2016 at 22:56, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
- hardware problems
If we build everything on LCD, we'll have Internet where just HTTP/80 works on 576B. You can certainly find platform which has problems doing else.
- lack of interest among ixp participants outside individual pushers
They probably want faster horses.
- lack of consensus about what MTU should be chosen
If we stop thinking of MTU as single entity and start thinking it as edge MTU and core MTU, it becomes less important, as long as core MTU covers overhead over edge. I would go for 1500B edge, and 9100B core, but that's just me.
- operational problems causing people to "temporarily disable connectivity until someone can take a look at it", i.e. permanently.
Vague. But ultimately this is what you will do always when issue is not solved, sometime you just have to give up, 'ok far end is gone, let's close this connection'.
- additional expense in some situations
Vague. 'Sometimes something has some cost which is more than in some other situation sometimes'.
- the main peering lan worked fine, ie no overriding value proposition
99% Internet users likely are happy with 576B HTTP only INET. I'm not still comfortable accepting that it's only thing Internet shoudl be.
- pmtu problems
Immaterial, it is there regardless.
- fragile and troublesome to debug when things went wrong
I've proposed automated, fully toolisable solution for IXP to verify customers have correct config. People who don't want to deal with this, who don't believe in this, can peer only over edgeMTU VLAN and have completely same situation as today. -- ++ytti