Re: How to use an IP-header bit for Path MTU discovery.
mogul (Jeffrey Mogul) Mon, 26 February 1990 20:53 UTC
Received: by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA02280; Mon, 26 Feb 90 12:53:34 PST
From: mogul (Jeffrey Mogul)
Message-Id: <9002262053.AA02280@acetes.pa.dec.com>
Date: 26 Feb 1990 1253-PST (Monday)
To: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
Cc: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>
Subject: Re: How to use an IP-header bit for Path MTU discovery.
In-Reply-To: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr> /
Sun, 25 Feb 90 14:03:50 -0100. <9002251303.AA15531@gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
Would be it be so bad to require intra-subnet fragmentation/reassembly on tiny-gram subnets? It could be done either at level 2 or 3... This would have been the right thing to do a decade ago. It is still the right thing to recommend ... but (1) It's too late to change most of the tinygram data links, they're already "mature" techology and there probably will be few new ones devised (2) Changing the rules for these data links (essentially, changing the specs for how IPs are encapsulated) would be a major political undertaking. I encourage you to form your own working group; it's outside the charter of this one. -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