Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:56:22 -0500 From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> To: William Carrel <william.carrel@infospace.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: path_mtu_discovery Message-ID: <20020104235622.GA53844@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In-Reply-To: <C64F7C2E-0159-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8@infospace.com> References: <3C36149B.B9C02DCF@mindspring.com> <C64F7C2E-0159-11D6-9ED7-003065B4E0E8@infospace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a message written on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:26:54PM -0800, William Carrel wrote:
> See now you've made me curious, and I ask myself questions like: How
> robust is PMTU-D against someone malicious who wants to make us send
> tinygrams? Could the connection eventually be forced down to an MTU so
> low that no actual data transfer could occur, or TCP frames with only
> one byte of information?
I don't have the RFC handy, but aren't all Internet connected hosts
required to support a minimum MTU of 576 from end to end with no
fragmentation? Thus if we ever got an MTU less than 576 we should
ignore it. Right?
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020104235622.GA53844>