From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Aug 22 21:04:03 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id VAA07235
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:04:03 -0700
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA07225
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:03:57 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA12435; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 22:03:12 -0600
Message-Id: <199508230403.WAA12435@rover.village.org>
To: Peter Wemm <peter@haywire.DIALix.COM>
Subject: Re: IPFW and SCREEND 
Cc: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk>,
        Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.win.tue.nl>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 23 Aug 1995 03:50:44 +0800
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 22:03:11 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

: "telnet"), so you'd need to toss *at least* anything with an offset of < 68...

Does that work with ATM IP implementations?  Last I heard the data
size per packet was rather small.

None the less, I think it is likely to be valid, since most fragments
are multiples of the smallest MTU between here and there, and those
start in the 200 range.

Warner