Mateusz Viste wrote:
> I believe you wanted to say "frame" instead of packet and "64" instead of 
> "60"? As far as I know, an IP packet can transport no payload, which gives a 
> 20-bytes packet in result. :-P
> The limitation is about the minimum size of the frame, which (on ethernet) is 
> of 64 bytes, to allow proper collision detection... (I hoped that such 
> low-layer stuff would be handled by the packet driver... seems that it is 
> not...)
>
> All in all, mTCP sounds like a great project. It's really nice to see that 
> someone still cares to write some good stuff for DOS! :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Mateusz Viste
>   

Mateusz,

Yes, you caught me being sloppy with the terminology.  You are correct, 
it was the Ethernet frames that I was working with, not IP.  
Specifically causing the problems were ARP packets, which are far 
smaller than the minimum.  The symptoms were that ARP would never get a 
response from the outside world because the packet driver was 'eating' 
the non-compliant frame/packet.

I used '60' instead of '64' because from the user/stack perspective the 
four bytes of CRC are not part of the payload.  So if one assumes and 
uses a minimum payload size of 60 and the driver/hardware add the CRC, 
then you get to 64 bytes.


Regards,
Mike



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Reply via email to