re: MTUs on different paths

Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET> Mon, 11 December 1989 13:49 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA01590; Mon, 11 Dec 89 05:49:35 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA11386; Mon, 11 Dec 89 05:49:32 -0800
Message-Id: <8912111349.AA11386@decwrl.dec.com>
To: deering@pescadero.stanford.edu
Cc: mtudwg
Subject: re: MTUs on different paths
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1989 08:49:01 -0500
From: Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET>

> There is, however, a problem with the RFC-1063 approach of allowing
> the Reply MTU to be piggybacked on any returning datagram -- the
> association between the MTU and its corresponding TOS or other
> route-influencing options may be lost.

Steve:
    
    Well, this is one of the two approaches.

    The other approach has TCP initiating the options and TCP, could
conceivably, retrieve the option and direct IP as to the TOS being used.

Craig

MTUs on different paths art
Re: MTUs on different paths Steve Deering
re: MTUs on different paths Craig Partridge
Re: MTUs on different paths Steve Deering
Re: MTUs on different paths Philippe Prindeville