Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:22:15 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, dk+@ua.net, shocking@mailbox.uq.edu.au, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting MTU from userland ppp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970201202048.263X-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <E0vqZGu-0002bc-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <199701302342.XAA20718@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Brian Somers writes: > : > > Don't use 256 as your MTU. (violates the RFC) > : > > : > Any chance of having the software *enforce* the RFC, then? > : > : I'll have a look at the RFC. It currently checks that 100 <= M[TR]U <= 2000. > > Can someone point out where in the RFCs it says that an MTU size of > 256 is illegal? > > The closes that I've seen is a statement in the IP RFC that says that > a remote side must be able to asssemble a packet of at least 576 > bytes, but does not disallow smaller fragment sizes. As far as I am aware, the minimum MTU is 68 - a fully optioned IP packet with a single 8 octet chunk of fragment. At least, that is for routers. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970201202048.263X-100000>