From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 31 22:52:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA07601 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07596 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1) id E0vqZGu-0002bc-00; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:49:56 -0700 To: Brian Somers Subject: Re: Setting MTU from userland ppp Cc: Terry Lambert , dk+@ua.net, shocking@mailbox.uq.edu.au, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:42:32 GMT." <199701302342.XAA20718@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> References: <199701302342.XAA20718@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:49:56 -0700 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199701302342.XAA20718@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Brian Somers writes: : > > Don't use 256 as your MTU. (violates the RFC) : > : > Any chance of having the software *enforce* the RFC, then? : : I'll have a look at the RFC. It currently checks that 100 <= M[TR]U <= 2000. Can someone point out where in the RFCs it says that an MTU size of 256 is illegal? The closes that I've seen is a statement in the IP RFC that says that a remote side must be able to asssemble a packet of at least 576 bytes, but does not disallow smaller fragment sizes. Warner