<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MTU and ping size confusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/</link>
	<description>Networkers&#039; Home on the Internet</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:34:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hin</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-6122</link>
		<dc:creator>Hin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-6122</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your detailed explanation of using different equipments with a different ping size result, from your post, it mention CISCO IOS doing ping test already including the IP header + ICMP header, i am wondering if all CISCO equipment using the same calculating method on the ping size? how to know if my Cisco equipment using the above calculating structure?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your detailed explanation of using different equipments with a different ping size result, from your post, it mention CISCO IOS doing ping test already including the IP header + ICMP header, i am wondering if all CISCO equipment using the same calculating method on the ping size? how to know if my Cisco equipment using the above calculating structure?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .a7.</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-6106</link>
		<dc:creator>.a7.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-6106</guid>
		<description>Very informative. Thanks for taking time to post this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very informative. Thanks for taking time to post this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taufiq</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-5688</link>
		<dc:creator>Taufiq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-5688</guid>
		<description>This is very cool. It&#039;s been quite a long time we&#039;ve been confused with Cisco and Juniper MTU differences. Thanks alot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is very cool. It&#8217;s been quite a long time we&#8217;ve been confused with Cisco and Juniper MTU differences. Thanks alot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-2670</link>
		<dc:creator>K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 09:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-2670</guid>
		<description>Good article!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rami</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-2572</link>
		<dc:creator>Rami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-2572</guid>
		<description>very nice
thank you very much for this nice site...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very nice<br />
thank you very much for this nice site&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mmahmoud</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-2078</link>
		<dc:creator>mmahmoud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-2078</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Initially I though it was related to the minimum Ethernet frame size of 64 bytes, but when doing the math (and some Wireshark) I found out that it didn&#039;t, if you used 36 bytes datagram size, this means an Ethernet frame of a total of 54 bytes (14 bytes Ethernet Header + 20 bytes IP Header + 8 bytes ICMP Header + 8 bytes ICMP data + 4 bytes CRC), and you&#039;ll find that the Cisco router pads the Ethernet frame with extra 10 bytes (all zeros) to comply with the minimum Ethernet frame size (JUNOS and other OSs don&#039;t do this anymore, it is useless with Full Duplex Ethernet anyway, remember that the minimum Ethernet frame size was mainly forced for insuring the detection of collisions). Anyway I&#039;ll try to dig for an answer for your question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Initially I though it was related to the minimum Ethernet frame size of 64 bytes, but when doing the math (and some Wireshark) I found out that it didn&#8217;t, if you used 36 bytes datagram size, this means an Ethernet frame of a total of 54 bytes (14 bytes Ethernet Header + 20 bytes IP Header + 8 bytes ICMP Header + 8 bytes ICMP data + 4 bytes CRC), and you&#8217;ll find that the Cisco router pads the Ethernet frame with extra 10 bytes (all zeros) to comply with the minimum Ethernet frame size (JUNOS and other OSs don&#8217;t do this anymore, it is useless with Full Duplex Ethernet anyway, remember that the minimum Ethernet frame size was mainly forced for insuring the detection of collisions). Anyway I&#8217;ll try to dig for an answer for your question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YT.Zhang</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-2070</link>
		<dc:creator>YT.Zhang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-2070</guid>
		<description>Hi.
  Friend, I saw your post, it&#039;s great, but still I have some confusion. Let me show you:
  When you get ping in cisco IOS routers, the  min size of 
datagram size is 36 bytes, the max size of datagram size is 18024 bytes, right? and I wonder why it&#039;s 36 bytes? it&#039;s contain 20 bytes of ip header and 8 byte of icmp header and 8 byte of data?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi.<br />
  Friend, I saw your post, it&#8217;s great, but still I have some confusion. Let me show you:<br />
  When you get ping in cisco IOS routers, the  min size of<br />
datagram size is 36 bytes, the max size of datagram size is 18024 bytes, right? and I wonder why it&#8217;s 36 bytes? it&#8217;s contain 20 bytes of ip header and 8 byte of icmp header and 8 byte of data?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shivlu jain</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1942</link>
		<dc:creator>shivlu jain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-1942</guid>
		<description>Today we struck with the same issue but our post help us lot. Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today we struck with the same issue but our post help us lot. Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mmahmoud</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1900</link>
		<dc:creator>mmahmoud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-1900</guid>
		<description>You are very welcomed, I am glade that you&#039;ve found our post useful, and I believe that the upcoming period will have interesting C and J posts, pure vendor-less technical posts and other posts contrasting how both vendors implement the technologies.

Have a nice day.

BR,
Mohammed Mahmoud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are very welcomed, I am glade that you&#8217;ve found our post useful, and I believe that the upcoming period will have interesting C and J posts, pure vendor-less technical posts and other posts contrasting how both vendors implement the technologies.</p>
<p>Have a nice day.</p>
<p>BR,<br />
Mohammed Mahmoud.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amir Mohamed</title>
		<link>http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2010/02/mtu-and-ping-size-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1880</link>
		<dc:creator>Amir Mohamed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkers-online.com/blog/?p=239#comment-1880</guid>
		<description>Many thanks for helpful information that clear my confusion</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many thanks for helpful information that clear my confusion</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
