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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
