From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 21 16:37:12 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23FA16A419 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:37:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fox@verio.net) Received: from dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net [129.250.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F0013C45B for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:37:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fox@verio.net) Received: from [129.250.36.64] (helo=dfw-mmp4.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net with esmtp id 1ICHx7-0001m4-1K for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:37:09 +0000 Received: from [129.250.40.241] (helo=limbo.int.dllstx01.us.it.verio.net) by dfw-mmp4.email.verio.net with esmtp id 1ICHx6-0003oE-UK for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:37:08 +0000 Received: by limbo.int.dllstx01.us.it.verio.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6D2EF8E296; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:37:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:37:05 -0500 From: David DeSimone To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070721163704.GC13029@verio.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <200707150237.l6F2bAgZ011098@redrock.karels.net> <469E0FFF.8070802@seclark.us> <20070720172021.8EA3D13C4B3@mx1.freebsd.org> <46A10063.9010902@elischer.org> <46A10860.50804@es.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46A10860.50804@es.net> Precedence: bulk User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:37:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eli Dart wrote: > > The networks that are apparently working fine are most likely > misconfigured, IMHO. > > Others have made a case for permitting an interface to accept as large > a packet as it can, regardless of configured MTU. That's fine for > theory. It works okay in practice, too. You are correct about misconfigured networks. In my experience, the only reason to ever reduce the MTU is to work around a problem discovered in someone else's network (not my local segment). Fixing the problem by getting someone else to fix their network is generally too hard. If MTU == MRU was forced behavior, the viability of this workaround would be removed, one less tool in the toolbag, so to speak. - -- David DeSimone == Network Admin == fox@verio.net "It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing, but I couldn't give it up because by that time I was too famous. -- Robert Benchley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGojYwFSrKRjX5eCoRAipgAJkBV6/IhmR8M+0o/bHviMFEvrfovQCcDP3w FoLZrDFkw5bJKqIwiLaW62E= =0KSA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----