Re: Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meeting (7 Feb 1990)
Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Mon, 26 February 1990 22:44 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA02703; Mon, 26 Feb 90 14:44:37 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA16477; Mon, 26 Feb 90 14:44:32 -0800
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA21659; Mon, 26 Feb 90 14:44:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 14:27:00 -0000
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meeting (7 Feb 1990)
To: mogul
Cc: mtudwg
Message-Id: <90/02/26
In-Reply-To: mogul's message of 26 Feb 1990 1312-PST (Monday)
Jeff, Oops! You're right about 4.3BSD. It does appear to do the right thing. (However, I believe the line of code that you quoted only applies to non-initial fragments. The code that updates the initial fragment, which is the one of concern for MTU discovery, appears later as follows: ip->ip_off = htons((u_short)(ip->ip_off | IP_MF)); My mistake was to assume that ip->ip_off on the RHS contained only the offset value, rather than the offset and the high-order bits.) Steve
- Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meeting (7… Jeffrey Mogul
- Re: Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meetin… Steve Deering
- Re: Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meetin… Philippe Prindeville
- Re: Minutes of MTU Discovery Working Group Meetin… Steve Deering