From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 19:27:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CC416A402 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:27:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C5A13C441 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:27:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:27:25 -0400 id 00056412.4697D21D.00012712 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:27:25 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: David DeSimone Message-Id: <20070713152725.6ae40056.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <20070713180840.GB8392@verio.net> References: <46967C5C.5040505@seclark.us> <469772DA.1000700@gmail.com> <46977741.8090301@seclark.us> <20070713093408.b8a92c23.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <4697A60C.4090409@seclark.us> <20070713130402.ed2f79ce.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070713180840.GB8392@verio.net> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:27:26 -0000 In response to David DeSimone : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bill Moran wrote: > > > > Let's flip the question around a bit: why would you _want_ the TCP > > stack to accept frames larger than the stated MTU? > > If I receive a 64K frame and the TCP checksum checks out, and the > sequence numbers match, and it passes my firewall state, why NOT receive > it? It is obviously valid, even if I cannot understand how my interface > could have received it. The packet is here, so do something useful with > it. But it's not here yet. The problem is that it doesn't pass a basic sanity check at the media layer, so it would be dropped before it ever starts seeing checks at the TCP or IP layer. > I agree with others that MTU means "limit what I transmit". It does not > mean "limit what someone else can transmit to me." Interesting viewpoint. I disagree with it, but I can't quote any standard or otherwise to support my view. You didn't either. Does anyone know of a publicised, authoritative standard that would clear this up? -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023