From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul  8 17:44:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB5637B401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  8 Jul 2003 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fed1mtao01.cox.net (fed1mtao01.cox.net [68.6.19.244])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8A543F85
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  8 Jul 2003 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brently@bjwcs.com)
Received: from samba ([68.98.5.134]) by fed1mtao01.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP
          id <20030709004443.ZNKA24939.fed1mtao01.cox.net@samba>
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
          Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:44:43 -0400
From: "Brent Wiese" <brently@bjwcs.com>
To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:44:45 -0700
Message-ID: <0b9001c345b3$4ac98850$0a0114ac@home.bjwcs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300
Importance: Normal
Subject: NAT and MTU
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:44:47 -0000

I have a machine that is being double-NAT'd.

Would it make sense to set the MTU lower to account for the NAT overhead?

It makes sense to me as I know MTU, but I like to check in case my thinking
isn't right. :)

Brent