From owner-freebsd-security Sun Sep 3 16:18: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F35437B424 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 16:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115345>; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:17:27 +1000 Content-return: prohibited Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:17:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: ipfw and fragments In-reply-to: <200009031727.LAA03881@nomad.yogotech.com>; from nate@yogotech.com on Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 11:27:46AM -0600 To: Nate Williams Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-followup-to: Nate Williams , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <00Sep4.101727est.115345@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i References: <0009030256211M.20066@smp.kyx.net> <200009031727.LAA03881@nomad.yogotech.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2000-Sep-03 11:27:46 -0600, Nate Williams wrote: >Actually, isn't the purpose of PMTU to avoid the need to fragment the >packet at intermediate routers? Yes. But I have also used a RAS that just clears the DF bit and fragments the packet anyway. The RAS provider seems unable to understand that this is a problem. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message