nanog mailing list archives
Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection?
From: Chris Cappuccio <chris () dqc org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:09:13 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Vern Paxson wrote: | To help resolve this issue, I'm wondering whether the ISP community has a | clear preference for either yes-do-detection or no-we-want-the-problems-fixed. | Comments appreciated. | I think that most ISP's would prefer that problems were fixed. However, we also know this doesn't happen very often, unless provoked (by customers, usually.) Can you provide more detail as to what problems would be masked or otherwise ignored if TCP implementations started to accomodate for the lack of Path-MTU discovery ? --- Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Current thread:
- should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Vern Paxson (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Alex P. Rudnev (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Chris Cappuccio (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Jeff Mcadams (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Greg A. Woods (Nov 19)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Alex P. Rudnev (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: should TCPs do MTU black hole detection? Dave Morton (Nov 19)