IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Another proposal to think about

Philippe Prindeville <philipp@gipsi.gipsi.fr> Wed, 29 November 1989 10:48 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA17976; Wed, 29 Nov 89 02:48:35 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA06144; Wed, 29 Nov 89 02:48:28 -0800
Received: from gipsi.gipsi.fr by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA16817; Wed, 29 Nov 89 11:48:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: by gipsi.gipsi.fr; Wed, 29 Nov 89 11:48:27 -0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 11:48:27 -0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@gipsi.gipsi.fr>
Message-Id: <8911291048.AA05369@gipsi.gipsi.fr>
Phone: +33 1 30 60 75 25 / +33 1 47 34 42 74
To: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>
Subject: Re: Another proposal to think about

> Your proposal to handle MTU discovery at the TCP level sounds
> reasonable, except that it only works for TCP.  That means we would
> have to make similar changes to any other "packetization" protocols,
> such as TP4 or VMTP or NFS, in order for them also to take advantage
> of MTU discovery.  

Excuse me, but something is obviously wrong in someone's thinking
here (possibly mine):  Why would one *want* to change the packet
size of an VMTP or UDP packet?  They are record-oriented protocols
and must preserve such boundaries.

-Philip

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email