nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smallest Transit MTU
From: John Kristoff <jtk () northwestern edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:39:10 -0600
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:51:01 -0500 "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com> wrote:
You must not remember how SunOS 4 responded when handed icmp echo requests with the record-route option set (passed the packet on for the next guy to enjoy and then promptly paniced).
[...] Now I know wide deployment of IPv6 is in jeopardy. If using 2 reserved bits in a TCP header causes this kind of fear, imagine the resistance IPv6 and it's redefinition of 20 bytes plus an addition of 20 has yet to see. John
Current thread:
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU, (continued)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Edward B. Dreger (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Dan Hollis (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Dan Hollis (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)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 31)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU Scott Weeks (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU Matthew Kaufman (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 31)