nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: John Fraizer <nanog () EnterZone Net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
2000-07-14-20:06:30 Shawn McMahon:On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 07:42:08PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:Unfortunately an increasing number of Internet users, with servers I might add, are now behind DSL lines that have <1500-byte MTUs.....[...] So what are we going to do, folks; are we going to react to people who are in this situation by saying "oh, well; guess I'm walled off from you, too bad, so sad, dump that $50 connection and get a T1 or get off my Internet", or are we going to adapt?What kind of adaptation is necessary? Traditionally that sort of thing hasn't been a problem; that's what fragmentation is for.
Bennett, We're talking about providers-of-the-masses being the direct upstream of these devices. They are more likely to do something less than 35:1 oversubscription than they are to deploy routers with the horsepower to fragment for every one of their customers. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918, (continued)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Michael Shields (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Danny McPherson (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 16)
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 16)
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)
- RE: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 15)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 15)