IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Another proposal

sytek!rfox@Sun.COM (Rich Fox) Sat, 02 December 1989 03:37 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA11499; Fri, 1 Dec 89 19:37:28 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA11977; Fri, 1 Dec 89 13:06:22 -0800
Received: from sun.Sun.COM (sun-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26696; Fri, 1 Dec 89 13:06:10 PST
Received: from sytek.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05075; Fri, 1 Dec 89 13:05:35 PST
Received: by sytek.hls.hac.com (5.51/5.17) id AA17370; Fri, 1 Dec 89 10:31:23 PST
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1989 10:31:23 -0800
From: sytek!rfox@Sun.COM
Message-Id: <8912011831.AA17370@sytek.hls.hac.com>
To: mtudwg, smb@research.att.com
Subject: Re: Another proposal

Steve, we discussed the issue of hosts not handling options in non-SYN packets
in Hawaii. I think the consensus was that no one knew of an implementation that
breaks. I have done a fair amount of testing with options as have others and
no hosts have broken. 
  Also, non-SYN options will only (should only) be sent in the MTU discovery
process if both hosts participate, and I think it can be assumed then that both
hosts will be able to support the options. If one of the hosts does not support
the MTU discovery process then the original MSS will probably be the minimum
value.

Your concern about header predictions is a valid one, though I am not so sure
it will be affected, can anybody elaborate?


rich

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email