From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug 23 00:39:35 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id AAA17046
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:39:35 -0700
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA17037
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:39:24 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id BAA22998; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:36:10 -0600
Message-Id: <199508230736.BAA22998@rover.village.org>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freefall.FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: IPFW and SCREEND 
Cc: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl, peter@haywire.dialix.com,
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:18:44 PDT
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:36:09 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

: Actually, since all IP-nets SHALL transfer a minimum MTU of 576 (or 
: thereabout), there is no reason to receive a fragment with an offset of less.

The MTU on many SLIP links is set to 296.  In violation or not, that
seems to work.  However, I'm not sure how well things like DNS work in
that case.

Warner