Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:03:35 -0800 From: William Carrel <william.carrel@infospace.com> To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: path_mtu_discovery Message-ID: <A98777D4-016F-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8@infospace.com> In-Reply-To: <20020104235622.GA53844@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 03:56 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:26:54PM -0800, William=20= > 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? RFC 879 (http://www.rfc.net/rfc879.html) would tend to disagree... (10) Gateways must be prepared to fragment datagrams to fit into the=20 packets of the next network, even if it smaller than 576 octets. -- Andy Carrel - william.carrel@infospace.com - +1 (425) 201-8745 Se=F1or Systems Eng. - Corporate Infrastructure Applications - InfoSpace 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?A98777D4-016F-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8>