Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:41:47 -0500
From:      Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To:        William Carrel <william.carrel@infospace.com>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: path_mtu_discovery
Message-ID:  <20020105004147.GA55116@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <A98777D4-016F-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8@infospace.com>
References:  <20020104235622.GA53844@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <A98777D4-016F-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8@infospace.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a message written on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:03:35PM -0800, William Carrel wrote:
> RFC 879 (http://www.rfc.net/rfc879.html) would tend to disagree...
> 
> (10) Gateways must be prepared to fragment datagrams to fit into the 
> packets of the next network, even if it smaller than 576 octets.

Hmm, I'd swear there was a defined minimum, I may have the wrong one.

For reference, it appears Cisco IOS based devices won't allow MTU
smaller than 128 to be configured.  I have no idea if that's based
on some standard.

It seems like there should be a minimum global standard.

-- 
       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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020105004147.GA55116>