From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 4 15:56:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ussenterprise.ufp.org (ussenterprise.ufp.org [208.185.30.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50AB37B506 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bicknell@localhost) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g04NuM654093; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:56:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bicknell) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:56:22 -0500 From: Leo Bicknell To: William Carrel Cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: path_mtu_discovery Message-ID: <20020104235622.GA53844@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Mail-Followup-To: William Carrel , Terry Lambert , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3C36149B.B9C02DCF@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: United Federation of Planets Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message written on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:26:54PM -0800, William Carrel wrote: > See now you've made me curious, and I ask myself questions like: How > robust is PMTU-D against someone malicious who wants to make us send > tinygrams? Could the connection eventually be forced down to an MTU so > low that no actual data transfer could occur, or TCP frames with only > one byte of information? I don't have the RFC handy, but aren't all Internet connected hosts required to support a minimum MTU of 576 from end to end with no fragmentation? Thus if we ever got an MTU less than 576 we should ignore it. Right? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message