re: some further musings

art@sage.acc.com Wed, 06 December 1989 18:26 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA03779; Wed, 6 Dec 89 10:26:15 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA05553; Wed, 6 Dec 89 10:25:52 -0800
Message-Id: <8912061825.AA05553@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1989 08:34:00 -0800
From: art@sage.acc.com
Subject: re: some further musings
To: mtudwg <mtudwg>

>What would folks think about combining these two schemes.  That is
>defining both IP options: 1063's for infrequent but periodic usage
>for determining MTU increases; and the report-N-fragmentations for
>setting-up triggers for the immedaite discovery of MTU decreases.
>
>Keith.

Keith,

If I understand your "report-N-fragmentations", then I am concerned about
the state that must be kept.  If the state is only in the end system, then
state must be kept for each IP source.  If state is kept in the router,
then state must be kept for each IP source/destination pair.
Also, would the report be generated for N successive fragmentations
(probably not), N fragmentations within M packets, N framentations
in time T, or ???

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|	Art Berggreen		Advanced Computer Communications	|
|	<art@sage.acc.com>	Santa Barbara Street			|
|	(805)963-9431		Santa Barbara, CA 93101			|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+