From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 28 09:28:01 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA25395
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vdp01.vailsystems.com (root@vdp01.vailsystems.com [207.152.98.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25380
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crocodile.vale.com (crocodile [204.117.217.147]) by vdp01.vailsystems.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA03626; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:27:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: from jaguar (jaguar.vale.com [204.117.217.146]) by crocodile.vale.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01160; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:27:43 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <32EE370F.7CDD@vailsys.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:27:43 -0600
From: Hal Snyder <hal@vailsys.com>
Reply-To: hal@vailsys.com
Organization: Vail Systems, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hackers@freebsd.org
CC: pete@sms.fi
Subject: best mtu for lo0?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

While searching FreeBSD archived mail items, I found that

Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> wrote:

> What's your lo0 MTU? If it's the 16384 that some
> non-tcp-knowledgeable person put in sometime in the past 
> I think what you are seeing is called "TCP deadlock" which appears when
> window size is equal or smaller than the MTU. This makes TCP to be
> stop-and-go protocol (remember XMODEM? or non-windowing kermit) and thus
> the troughput of the protocol is pretty horrible. This happens on ATM also
> if you are running with 4096 or 8192 window sizes and the RFC1577 default
> MTU of 9180.
> Fortunately not too many applications use the 127.0.0.1 address but use
> the loopback provided by the ethernet-interface. (and thus get the MTU of
> 1500)

Is this correct?  I notice 2.1.6-R sets MTU for lo0 to 16384.  Should
this be reduced to 1500?  Will it affect performance of aliased IP
addresses, for which a static route through lo0 is usually specified?