It being a thing on "the internet" would require it being a thing on a sizable majority of the internet. You'd need to get large network operators, peering points, user-facing ISPs, and even users themselves on board to change their setups.
And Path MTU discovery is still sufficiently unreliable as to make it incredibly painful to have partial large-MTU networks.
And if you do any of this with standard home customers, a hellscape torrent of user complaints is going to rain down on your support contacts. Which costs money. More money than is lost by the higher cost of routing smaller packets.
So, no, jumbo frames could not be a thing on the internet. There's a reason it's called fossilization. There is no technical reason precluding changing this, it's just frozen into way too many places to be changed.
This the same argument why IPv6 can't be a thing on the internet; I agree that the book isn't closed entirely on that yet, but very significant progress has been made.
Except disruptions (i.e. worse service than IPv4 only) from rolling out IPv6 are the exception while disruptions from rolling out jumbo frames are absolutely the norm.
It being a thing on "the internet" would require it being a thing on a sizable majority of the internet. You'd need to get large network operators, peering points, user-facing ISPs, and even users themselves on board to change their setups.
And Path MTU discovery is still sufficiently unreliable as to make it incredibly painful to have partial large-MTU networks.
And if you do any of this with standard home customers, a hellscape torrent of user complaints is going to rain down on your support contacts. Which costs money. More money than is lost by the higher cost of routing smaller packets.
So, no, jumbo frames could not be a thing on the internet. There's a reason it's called fossilization. There is no technical reason precluding changing this, it's just frozen into way too many places to be changed.