| 1 |
* wabe <wabenbau@×××××.com> [160919 20:50]: |
| 2 |
> Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > A while back I was having networking issues. I eventually tried |
| 5 |
> > drastically lowering the MTU of all the systems onsite and the issues |
| 6 |
> > disappeared. I always thought the issue was due to the MTU on our |
| 7 |
> > modem/router. Today I read that AT&T DSL requires a 1492 MTU so I |
| 8 |
> > increased the MTU of our systems up to 1492 and haven't had any |
| 9 |
> > issues. Do certain ISPs require you to change the MTU of your entire |
| 10 |
> > network, or is this likely due to our AT&T modem/router itself? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> AFAIK the MTU is defined for every network interface separately. For an |
| 13 |
> ADSL connection it is common that a lower MTU is needed because of the |
| 14 |
> PPPoE header information that is encapsulated in the ethernet frames. |
| 15 |
> But in that case it is sufficient to lower the MTU just for the WAN |
| 16 |
> interface that is connected to the DSL modem. |
| 17 |
> If you don't use protocol encapsulation in your LAN then there should |
| 18 |
> be IMHO no reason for lowering the MTU of your internal interfaces. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> -- |
| 21 |
> Regards |
| 22 |
> wabe |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
MTU is per network interface but you really don't want to end up having |
| 25 |
your router fragment every IP packet because systems on your subnet are |
| 26 |
using a larger MTU. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Todd |
Archives