Re: SMB's proposal: using an IP option for "Report Fragmentation" flag

Philippe Prindeville <philipp@gipsi.gipsi.fr> Mon, 04 December 1989 15:14 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA08894; Mon, 4 Dec 89 07:14:19 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA00455; Mon, 4 Dec 89 07:14:09 -0800
Received: from gipsi.gipsi.fr by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA19602; Mon, 4 Dec 89 15:50:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: by gipsi.gipsi.fr; Mon, 4 Dec 89 15:50:35 -0100 (MET)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 15:50:35 -0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@gipsi.gipsi.fr>
Message-Id: <8912041450.AA21460@gipsi.gipsi.fr>
Phone: +33 1 30 60 75 25 / +33 1 47 34 42 74
To: mogul
Subject: Re: SMB's proposal: using an IP option for "Report Fragmentation" flag
Cc: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>

> Perhaps the state of the art in interface and router technology has
> obviated this problem, but I'd rather not make this assumption.

I differ -- the state of the art has created it.  Most routers can
send back to back packets easily enough, but begin to lose on
reception as load increases even marginally.  Thus they are well
suited to fragmentation, but poorly for reassembly.

-Philip