From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 9 07:31:55 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA16331 for current-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA16312 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:31:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM) id AA03657; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:31:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:31:18 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" Message-Id: <9602091531.AA03657@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: "Adam David" Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP/IP interoperability problem, workaround In-Reply-To: <199602090000.AAA03653@veda.is> References: <9602082045.AA28752@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> <199602090000.AAA03653@veda.is> Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk < said: > Okay, that makes good sense. Now, there is a high likelihood of there > still being vast numbers of such broken gateways out there... Actually, these have become quite rare in most parts of the world. (Nowadays you would buy a dedicated router or run FreeBSD where five years ago you might still use PCROUTE or the MIT C Gateway.) Particularly since Windows 95 does MTU discovery and has no way to turn it off... > Or as a third option, might it be possible or even desirable to implement a > fallback mechanism whereby if Path MTU Discovery fails due to a non-compliant > gateway There is no way to distinguish this case from `the other host is not responding'. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant