I did a quick search, and found one. The page at https://web.archive.org/web/20060918065212/www.aarnet.edu.au/engineering/networkdesign/mtu/size.html https://we

I did a quick search, and found one. The page at https://web.archive.org/web/20060918065212/www.aarnet.edu.au/engineering/networkdesign/mtu/size.html https://web.archive.org/web/20060918065212/www.aarnet.edu.au... says: "The weakening of this frame check which greater frame sizes is explored in R. Jain's "Error Characteristics of Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI)", which appeared in IEEE Transactions on Communications, August 1990. [...] Firstly, the power of ethernet's Frame Check Sequence is the major limitation on increasing the ethernet MTU beyond 11444 bytes. Secondly, frame sizes under 11445 bytes are as well protected by ethernet's Frame Check Sequence as frame sizes under 1518 bytes." Another page at https://web.archive.org/web/20070426062813/http://sd.wareonearth.com:80/~phil/jumbo.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070426062813/http://sd.wareone... explains why 9000 bytes is commonly chosen: "Why 9000? First because ethernet uses a 32 bit CRC that loses its effectiveness above about 12000 bytes. And secondly, 9000 was large enough to carry an 8 KB application datagram (e.g. NFS) plus packet header overhead." (The page doesn't mention it, but I guess only multiples of 1500 were considered, and 9000 is the smallest multiple of 9000 greater than 8192.) Other links: "Raising the Internet MTU": https://web.archive.org/web/20070427184111/www.psc.edu/~mathis/MTU/ https://web.archive.org/web/20070427184111/www.psc.edu/~math... "Thoughts on increasing MTUs on the internet" (NANOG thread from 2007): https://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2007-04/msg00335.html https://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2... Edit: found the source of the "9000 bytes" de facto standard: https://noc.net.internet2.edu/i2network/jumbo-frames/rrsum-almes-mtu.html https://noc.net.internet2.edu/i2network/jumbo-frames/rrsum-a...