nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smallest Transit MTU
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:17:02 +0100
On 30-dec-04, at 0:48, Tony Rall wrote:
Remember that the DF bit is in the IP header - it can be on in any protocol. I know that AIX and my old RH Linux (at least) defaults to PMTUD enabled for tcp and udp. You can even see it in dns lookups.
I'm interested to learn what a poor unsuspecting UDP application does when it sends out packets that turn out to be too large? The UDP protocol is in no position to limit the packet size. So if the application doesn't do it either, the IP layer has to fragment the packets. This is exactly what happens with IPv6, but since routers must be prepared to fragment in IPv4 anyway, the whole exercise becomes fairly pointless...
Current thread:
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU, (continued)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Joe Abley (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Fred Baker (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Jerry Pasker (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Fred Baker (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Tony Rall (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Joe Abley (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Daniel Hagerty (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Alex Bligh (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Joe Abley (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Tony Rall (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Joe Abley (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Joe Abley (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Edward B. Dreger (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)