problems with RFC 1063
Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET> Mon, 27 November 1989 13:25 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA05481; Mon, 27 Nov 89 05:25:08 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA07673; Mon, 27 Nov 89 05:25:04 -0800
Message-Id: <8911271325.AA07673@decwrl.dec.com>
To: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>
Subject: problems with RFC 1063
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1989 08:21:09 -0500
From: Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET>
Hi folks: I'd like a fuller discussion of what's wrong with RFC 1063. Not because I desperately want to see RFC 1063 endorsed, but because I'd like to understand what is wrong with it. The only problem I'm aware of is that, in principle, gateways don't like options. I have two problems with that objection: (1) the option doesn't appear very often (I think we suggested once every 100 segments -- I've been convinced that we could make that number much higher like in the 1,000s). So you don't take an option processing hit too much... (2) by doing the occasional option processing, you should save on fragmentation processing..... I don't think we're going to continue to see people willing to live with 576 forever... Craig
- problems with RFC 1063 Craig Partridge
- Re: problems with RFC 1063 Steve Deering
- Re: problems with RFC 1063 Noel Chiappa
- Re: problems with RFC 1063 Jeffrey Mogul