Re: MTU discovery considered harmful?

Drew Daniel Perkins <ddp+@andrew.cmu.edu> Sun, 29 April 1990 22:10 UTC

Received: from decpa.pa.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA23262; Sun, 29 Apr 90 15:10:02 PDT
Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA16963; Sun, 29 Apr 90 15:09:59 -0700
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03659> for mtudwg@decwrl.dec.com; Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:10:58 EDT
Received: via switchmail; Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unix6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.EaCqLMa00WB700Pkgy>; Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unix6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr15/ddp/.Outgoing/QF.0aCqLFy00WB7A9yltU>; Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.unix6.andrew.cmu.edu.vax.3 via MS.5.6.unix6.andrew.cmu.edu.vax_3; Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <UaCqLBy00WB7M9ylhI@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Drew Daniel Perkins <ddp+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: mtudwg
Subject: Re: MTU discovery considered harmful?
In-Reply-To: <90/04/28 1559.523@pescadero.stanford.edu>
References: <90/04/28 1559.523@pescadero.stanford.edu>

Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> writes:
>         - We could lobby the point-to-point people to restrict their
>           choice of MTUs to a more limited set of choices, matching
>           our plateaus wherever possible.

I could imagine such "restrictions", but only if they were
"suggestions" or "implementors agreements".

> Maybe this is something we should discuss with the PPP people.  Are
> they planning to publish a table like the one above, but with fewer
> discrete choices of MTU?  (As I said, I think that would be a good
> thing for them to do.)

As far as I know, the "PPP people" had no such plans.  It would be a
good idea though...  My first suggestion would be that this table
belongs in Van's compression RFC.  That opinion could be wrong though,
and in any case it might be too late.  Perhaps the right thing to do
would be to take your note and expand it a bit into a two to three
page RFC?

Drew