nanog mailing list archives
Re: Minimum Internet MTU
From: Scott McGrath <mcgrath () fas harvard edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:01:48 -0500 (EST)
Or the X.25/IP gateways beloved of Airlines who are also good at complaining when traffic is dropped on the floor Scott C. McGrath On 22 Dec 2003, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Chris Brenton <cbrenton () chrisbrenton org> writes:I agree, this is a bit of a loaded question. I guess by safe I mean "Is anyone aware of a specific link or set of conditions that could cause _legitimate_ non-last fragmented packets on the wire that have a size of less than 1200 bytes". I agree there are bound to be inexperienced users who have shot themselves in the foot and tweaked their personal system lower than this threshold, thus my 99.9% requirement.You mean like everyone who's still running TCP/IP over AX.25 in the ham radio community? They're generally technically adept and good at complaining... I'm sure rbush would encourage his competitors to do this. What are you trying to accomplish by killing off the fragments? ---Rob
Current thread:
- Minimum Internet MTU Chris Brenton (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Neil J. McRae (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU bill (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Chris Brenton (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Scott McGrath (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Chris Brenton (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Stephen J. Wilcox (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Chris Brenton (Dec 22)
- Re: Minimum Internet MTU Chris Brenton (Dec 22)