From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Oct 27 12:53:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from lynx.syix.com (lynx.syix.com [205.171.72.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4524537B401 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cat (cat.npqr.net [63.147.19.40]) by lynx.syix.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f9RJrm874819 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:53:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dster@syix.com) Message-ID: <011c01c15f21$1f597380$2813933f@cat> From: "dster" To: References: <16946679.1004166720228.JavaMail.imail@pugsly.excite.com> Subject: Re: 4.4-STABLE machine unusable (was Re: Openssh) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:54:00 -0700 Organization: ls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Right. It turns out that Solaris has a parameter to switch path MTU > discovery on or off ("ndd /dev/ip ip_path_mtu_discovery"). Does FreeBSD > have anything similar? > > If MTU discovery fails (and AFAIK, path MTU discovery is optional with IPv4 > anyway), then doesn't it make sense not to set the no-frag bit? Why not > let the router fragment those datagrams whose sizes exceed the link MTU? > Why do we need IP fragmentation at all if not to handle cases like this one? > go here http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/ and search on mtu discovery To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message