Date: 18 May 2002 20:19:54 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ALTQ integration developer preview Message-ID: <1021717195.1466.4.camel@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <3CE61675.BCE2A9E1@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10205170216500.29826-100000@ady.warpnet.ro> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205171056200.2091-100000@scribble.fsn.hu> <3CE55A9B.73EA3DE4@mindspring.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205181018300.10011-100000@scribble.fsn.hu> <3CE61675.BCE2A9E1@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2002-05-18 at 18:53, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Sending datagrams bigger than the MTU is a bad idea. > > I would be real tempted to drop the packets and send "don't fragment" > ICMP responses to beat up anyone who abused UDP by sending larger > than the MTU. > > I guess this is about Linux UDP NFS clients, in particular. Eh? Isn't the original, traditional and best NFS configuration 8k UDP packets? Sure worked fine that way on SunOS-4 those many years ago. (On LANs, of course. No one does NFS over the internet. I hope.) -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1021717195.1466.4.camel>