From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Jul 19 13:18:22 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659F310352E3; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:18:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maxim.konovalov@gmail.com) Received: from mp2.macomnet.net (mp2.macomnet.net [195.128.64.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FB390BBA; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:18:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maxim.konovalov@gmail.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mp2.macomnet.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w6JDIIxr082534; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:18:19 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from maxim.konovalov@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:18:18 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov To: Michael Tuexen cc: Randall Stewart , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r336465 - in head/sys/netinet: . tcp_stacks In-Reply-To: <7FC7DAA2-9B03-4D89-A878-7706EDE4294A@macmic.franken.de> Message-ID: References: <201807182249.w6IMns6D076446@repo.freebsd.org> <7FC7DAA2-9B03-4D89-A878-7706EDE4294A@macmic.franken.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:18:22 -0000 On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, 08:09-0400, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 19. Jul 2018, at 03:12, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > > > Hi Randall, > > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, 22:49-0000, Randall Stewart wrote: > > > >> Author: rrs > >> Date: Wed Jul 18 22:49:53 2018 > >> New Revision: 336465 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/336465 > >> > >> Log: > >> Bump the ICMP echo limits to match the RFC > >> > > [...] > > > > Just wonder, are there any practical reasons to do that? > In case you send encapsulated packets triggering an ICMP message > you actually need more than the 8 bytes which are currently > reflected. OK, let me rephrase: why do you need more than 8 bytes? It looks like it has been working rather well for 20+ years. -- Maxim Konovalov