Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:39:36 +1100 (EST) From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: taob@io.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing Ethernet frame size to 576 bytes? Message-ID: <199603240639.RAA18197@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <n1384500272.3953@Richard Wackerbarth> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Mar 23, 96 11:03:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth writes: > His suggestion is valid. If the MTU is larger than the minimum MTU along > the path, each packet that you send out will be broken into sub-packets > and reassembled on the far end. AFAIK this can happen two ways .. MTU discovery or at some (arbitrary) router in the transit path. > If any subpacket gets lost, the whole packet is lost and must be > retransmitted. Yup .. similar to the NFS 8k datagram disease suffered by hosts with slow ethernet interfaces :-( > Since tcp knows how to recover lost packets, the file eventually gets > through. However, it is more efficient if your packets are not fragmented > in transit. Around here, anyone who has a BRI or better connection to the 'net runs with an MTU of 1500. There's no point in crippling every site on the net because some, hopefully few, transit paths can't cope, michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603240639.RAA18197>