Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:48:37 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> Cc: bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bug in netinet/tcp_input.c Message-ID: <9603081948.AA13903@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199603081932.LAA02322@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199603081932.LAA02322@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:32:48 -0800, Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> said: > The whole point of the 'mtu' field in the route entry, as I understand > it, is to limit the maximum segment size for TCP connections from *and* > TO the destination. You understand wrongly. > If you do not *use* that field when calculating > the mss you send to the other side for outgoing connections, what > use is it? You use it to keep track of the MTU along the path from your host to the other end. The purpose is to avoid fragmentation, not to allow users to play games with maximum segment size. > For example, if you attempt to streamline TCP operation to a given > destination by, say, setting the mtu to 296 and setting the recvpipe > and sendpipe to, say, 768, the expected result only works in one > direction... Which is precisely as it is intended. If you want to control the size of packets sent by the other end, you have to control the other end! That's the way TCP is designed to work. If you don't like it, design your own protocol. -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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9603081948.AA13903>