IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful"

Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr> Thu, 01 February 1990 01:43 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA00466; Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:43:09 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA05540; Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:43:02 -0800
Received: from [192.33.166.11] by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA27833; Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:57:51 +0100 (MET)
Received: by gipsi.Gipsi.Fr (4.12/4.8) id AA11875; Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:58:25 -0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:58:25 -0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
Message-Id: <9002010058.AA11875@gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
X-Phone: +33 1 30 60 75 25 / +33 1 47 34 42 74
To: mogul
Subject: Re: "Fragmentation considered harmful"
Cc: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>

	I find it hard to believe ("incredible" in the dictionary sense) that
	anyone would allow me to route packets through their network but not
	let me know what their MTU is.  Even less likely is that they would
	expend resources (their own, as well as mine) to make it hard for me
	to find out.
	
Jeff, you do seem to have a point.  I guess it would be easier to put
a brick-wall filter (to abuse a EE term) at the organization's border
to stop unwanted packets (such as probes).  An example is of course
VISA gateways or policy-based route hiding...

-Philip

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email