Re: draft RFC comments
Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Sat, 03 February 1990 02:26 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA19925; Fri, 2 Feb 90 18:26:54 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA27611; Fri, 2 Feb 90 12:36:12 -0800
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01866; Thu, 1 Feb 90 12:56:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1990 12:46:00 -0000
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: draft RFC comments
To: fab%saturn.ACC.COM@salt.acc.com
Cc: mtudwg
Message-Id: <90/02/01
In-Reply-To: fab%saturn.ACC.COM's message of Tue, 30 Jan 90 183642 EST
Fred, If I understand your proposal, it does not handle the situation where the PMTU decreases after the TCP connection has been established. We'd like to have a scheme that detects and adjusts to PMTU changes, which can occur whenever the dynamic routing changes. Steve
- draft RFC comments Fred Bohle acc_gnsc
- draft RFC comments Fred Bohle acc_gnsc
- Re: draft RFC comments Steve Deering
- Re: draft RFC comments Steve Deering