Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful"
mogul (Jeffrey Mogul) Thu, 01 February 1990 00:03 UTC
Received: by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA29947; Wed, 31 Jan 90 16:03:29 PST
From: mogul (Jeffrey Mogul)
Message-Id: <9002010003.AA29947@acetes.pa.dec.com>
Date: 31 Jan 1990 1603-PST (Wednesday)
To: James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.COM>
Cc: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>
Subject: Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful"
In-Reply-To: James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.COM> / Wed, 31 Jan 90 08:33:43 -0500.
<25177.633792823@tis.com>
That is one interpretation. Another is to realize my network may be "private", and I do not wish to explicitly tell you anything about it, including its MTU size, regardless of level. Now I realize that given sufficient trials something like the MTU could probably be "learned", which is why I said "explicitly" above. However, I could also make the learning process hard by going out of my way to confuse you. I find it hard to believe ("incredible" in the dictionary sense) that anyone would allow me to route packets through their network but not let me know what their MTU is. Even less likely is that they would expend resources (their own, as well as mine) to make it hard for me to find out. -Jeff
- "Fragmentation considered harmful" Philippe Prindeville
- Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful" Jeffrey Mogul
- Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful" James M Galvin
- Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful" Jeffrey Mogul
- Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful" Philippe Prindeville
- Re: How to use an IP-header bit for Path MTU disc… Jeffrey Mogul