From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May  5 18:30:39 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CCC16A402;
	Fri,  5 May 2006 18:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A1343D46;
	Fri,  5 May 2006 18:30:38 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D1646D1A;
	Fri,  5 May 2006 14:30:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:30:37 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060505033749.76815.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
Message-ID: <20060505192943.Q17611@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20060505033749.76815.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: RFC {get,set}socktopt SO_DONTFRAGMENT
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:39 -0000

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:

> 	I would like to propose a new socket option: SO_DONTFRAGMENT on the 
> lines of IP_DONTFRAG.

I'm confused.  Why not just use the IP_DONTFRAG socket option?  I must be 
missing something pretty basic here. :-)

Robert N M Watson