nanog mailing list archives
Re: MTU of the Internet?
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry () piermont com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 02:32:57 -0500
Eric Osborne writes:
The problem with anything Microsoft may put forth is that it'll read like "576 is good. It is the best. We do it. So should everybody. If 576 is good, all else must be bad." And that's simply not the case.
I must admit that I'm very worried about what will happen to the internet if they do this. Why? This will effectively triple the number of packets that routers have to do processing on, that's why. Frankly, the whole thing is stupid. I didn't say this earlier, but Microsoft has about the most abominable stacks out there. Their boxes STILL don't handle recieving fragmented packets correctly (a requirement of the RFCs!) and they have a host of flaws. I wish they'd get their act together. Perry
Current thread:
- Re: MTU of the Internet?, (continued)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? David Bowie (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Joseph Malcolm (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Fletcher E Kittredge (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Alex Bligh (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Phil Howard (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Marc Slemko (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Sean M. Doran (Feb 08)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Eric Osborne (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Perry E. Metzger (Feb 04)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Tony Li (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Jim Dixon (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Eric Osborne (Feb 05)
- Re: MTU of the Internet? Frank Kastenholz (Feb 05)