"Fragmentation considered harmful"

Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr> Wed, 31 January 1990 03:06 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA20349; Tue, 30 Jan 90 19:06:35 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA29749; Tue, 30 Jan 90 19:06:24 -0800
Received: from [] by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA26599; Wed, 31 Jan 90 02:48:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: by gipsi.Gipsi.Fr (4.12/4.8) id AA08050; Wed, 31 Jan 90 02:48:36 -0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 02:48:36 -0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
Message-Id: <9001310148.AA08050@gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
X-Phone: +33 1 30 60 75 25 / +33 1 47 34 42 74
To: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>
Subject: "Fragmentation considered harmful"

Going over the DECWRL report (not the ACM paper) I was thinking
that the IPMP protocol is a good idea, and it offers the chance
to kill several birds with one stone by collecting a lot more
than just the MTU along a path.  Additionally, I would suggest
collecting security levels available and type-of-service levels
available.  Perhaps a space for route recording too, since an IP
option is limited to 7.


P.S.	Some might argue it is a security breach to let one
	level convey information about (the existance of)
	other levels.  I will leave that to the spooks to