IEOC - INE's Online Community

Welcome to INE's Online Community - IEOC - a place for CCIE and CCENT candidates to connect, share, and learn. Our Online Community features CCIE forums and discussions for all tracks including Routing & Switching, Voice, Security, Service Provider, Wireless,, and Storage. Through these online communities you can discuss your questions with thousands of your peers, hundreds of CCIE's and INE's own team of world renowned CCIE instructors and authors, Brian Dennis - Quintuple CCIE #2210, Brian McGahan – Triple CCIE #8593, Petr Lapukhov - Quad CCIE #16379, and Mark Snow - Dual CCIE #14073.
Latest post 07-23-2015 12:33 AM by Martinl. 6 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (7 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 08-17-2012 12:56 PM

    10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command

    Hi there,

    While doing the QOS 10.2 WFQ section, I configured the serial with the following config :


    r4  r5
    int s0/1
     clock rate 128000
     bandwidth 128000
     hold-queue 256 out
     tx-ring-limit 1
     mtu 160
     fair-queue 16 128 8


    I noticed that the solution configures "ip mtu 156" and not "mtu 160".

    Is there a difference between the 2 commands ? Would "mtu 160" be an acceptable solution ?



    • Post Points: 50
  • 08-17-2012 2:10 PM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command


    The additional 4 bytes are for the Layer 2 HDLC encapsulation, which is not accounted for by the ip mtu command.

    Every frame sent out the link will have a maximum size of 160 bytes = 156 IP + 4 HDLC.

    Using ip mtu 160 would result in 164 bytes frame size.

    Hope this helps.

    Taldor Communications   Artiom Lichtenstein
    Professional Services Engineer and IT Instructor
       CCIE #37173

    • Post Points: 20
  • 08-18-2012 3:36 AM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command


    I noticed after my previous post that using the "mtu 160" command also reduces the IP mtu automatically to 160.


    sh run int s0/1
    Building configuration...

    Current configuration : 113 bytes
    interface Serial0/1
     mtu 160
     ip address
     ip rip advertise 10
     clock rate 128000


    sh int s0/1 | i MTU
      MTU 160 bytes, BW 1544 Kbit/sec, DLY 20000 usec,


    sh ip int s0/1 | i MTU
      MTU is 160 bytes




    • Post Points: 5
  • 07-27-2013 12:29 PM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command

    Hi Netgeek, 

    Noticed the post is about an year old, but thgt I would chime in nevertheless.

    When you configure the IP MTU 156 command, that does NOT impact the MTU for the serial interface. It only effects the MTU for the IP protocol.

    However, when you configure the command MTU 156 it restricts the MTU of the interface to 156 as well as for the IP protocol. Add to that the 4 bytes of HDLC encapsulation which is not taking into a/c with this command and you get 160 bytes total.


    • Post Points: 20
  • 07-21-2015 3:50 PM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command

    mtu 160 would not be an acceptable, because this will set the L2 MTU to 156 while the IP MTU sets the size of the IP packet, in this case will remain a default of 1500



    • Post Points: 20
  • 07-22-2015 9:39 PM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command

    Greetings All,

    Believe RoadToCCIE is correct.

    mtu 160 -- mtu for L2 protocol is 160 bytes  -- a ceiling for all frames carried by L2 protocol

    Rest are per protocol mtu adjustments, which must be less than/ equal to ceiling.

    ip mtu 100 -- mtu for L2 protocol is 160 bytes for IP packets

    ipx mtu 99 -- mtu for L2 protocol is 160 bytes for IPX packets

    mpls mtu 160 -- mtu for L2 protocol is 160 for labeled packets

    (mtu is size of payload for your L2 protocol; so, doesn't include L2 header bytes)

    • Post Points: 5
  • 07-23-2015 12:33 AM In reply to

    Re: 10.2 mtu vs ip mtu command

    this topic is old; originated in 2012; I don't thnink those guys are around anymore.

    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items)
IEOC CCIE Forums Internetwork Expert CCIE Training
About IEOC | Terms of Use | RSS | Privacy Policy
© 2010 Internetwork Expert, Inc. All Rights Reserved