Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:

> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > > Why large MTU then? Most modern ethernet controllers don´t care if you´re
> > > sending 1500 or 9000 byte packets. (with proper drivers taking advantage of
> > > the features there) If you´re paying for 40 byte packets anyway, there is no
> > > incentive to ever go beyond 1500 byte MTU.
> > >    
> >
> > I think its partially due to removal of overhead and improvements you get out of 
> > TCP (bearing in mind it uses windowing and slow start)
> Sure, if you control both endpoints. If you don´t and receivers have small
> (4k,8k or 16k) window sizes, your performance will suffer.
>
> Maybe we should define if we´re talking about record breaking attempts or real
> operationally useful things here.

By definition of this discussion about using large MTU we are assuming that 
packets are arriving >1500 bytes and therefore that we do have control of the 
endpoints and they are set to use jumbos

Steve