Re: [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 19 February 2002 11:40 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14520 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA29530 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA29296; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:35:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA29277 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:35:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14401 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:35:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1JBY4B04586; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:34:04 -0500
Message-Id: <200202191134.g1JBY4B04586@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: Tobin Coziahr <tobin.coziahr@sun.com>
cc: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>, DHCP discussion list <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation
In-Reply-To: Message from Tobin Coziahr <tobin.coziahr@sun.com> of "Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:22:08 PST." <3C721940.3D1D0D80@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:34:04 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
> The Maximum Message Size option is also known as the "maximum DHCP > message size" option (See RFC 2131, page 9-10). This ONLY refers to the > size of the DHCP packet itself, without the IP and UDP headers. The > point of the option is to let servers use messages larger than 548 > bytes, which is the default max. > So no, don't subtract the header size. Hmm. That's not what draft-ietf-dhc-csr-06.txt says: > stack is capable of reassembling fragmented IP datagrams. In this > case, the client SHOULD set the value of this option to at least > the MTU of the interface that the client is configuring. The > client MAY set the value of this option higher, up to the size of > the largest UDP packet it is prepared to accept. (Note that the > value specified in the Maximum DHCP Message Size option is the > total maximum packet size, including IP and UDP headers.) Is the above text correct? Thomas _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation Bud Millwood
- Re: [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation Tobin Coziahr
- Re: [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] Maximum message size interpretation Tobin Coziahr