Re: draft RFC comments

Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Sat, 03 February 1990 06:17 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA20473; Fri, 2 Feb 90 22:17:07 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA02460; Fri, 2 Feb 90 13:12:12 -0800
Received: from Pescadero.Stanford.EDU by gregorio.stanford.edu with TCP; Fri, 2 Feb 90 02:46:53 PST
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04789; Fri, 2 Feb 90 02:46:48 PDT
Date: 2 Feb 1990 2:41-PST
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: draft RFC comments
To: mtudwg%decwrl.dec.com@gregorio.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <90/02/02 0241.352@pescadero.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Steve Deering's message of 1 Feb 1990 1246-PST

[This is a message I sent to Fred Bohle and cc'd to the mtudwg list.
For some unknown reason, the cc copy has been sitting in pescadero's
output queue all day long, refusing to go to decwrl.  So I'm sending
it via another host.  Sorry for any duplicates.  - Steve]

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