From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 11 16:38:36 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA25042
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:38:36 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24863
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:37:00 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from root@implode.root.com)
Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA04285;
	Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199801120035.QAA04285@implode.root.com>
To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: why 100 byte TCP segments? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:34:50 MST."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95.980111153144.10734d-100000@alive.znep.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:35:37 -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>Yup, this seems to happen only with data between one and two mbuffs
>in size, ie.  101-207 bytes or so.  Smaller and it fits in one
>packet, between 208 and the MTU it is properly sent in one packet.

   It's a known problem with the socket code that has existed in BSD forever.
I think Garrett put a work-around in by fudging some thresholds, but I may be
mistaken.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project