--- Dennis Freise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:39:45 -0800 (PST)
> Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I've been trying to track down the answer to this and am coming up
> > empty handed. I'm hoping someone might shed some light on the
> > following.
> > 
> > When I do:
> > *************************
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] jbanks # netstat -rn
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window 
> > irtt Iface
> > 63.187.254.9    0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH       40 0      
>   
> > 0 ppp0
> > 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U        40 0      
>   
> > 0 eth0
> > 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U        40 0      
>   
> > 0 eth1
> > 127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG       40 0      
>   
> > 0 lo
> > 0.0.0.0         63.187.254.9    0.0.0.0         UG       40 0      
>   
> > 0 ppp0
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> earthdawn root # netstat -rn
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window 
> irtt Iface
> 192.168.99.0    0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U         0 0        
>  0 eth0
> 127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG        0 0        
>  0 lo
> 0.0.0.0         192.168.99.2  0.0.0.0         UG        0 0         
> 0 eth0
> 
> That's even more strange than yours, isn't it ? :) Don't worry about
> it...

That is strange Dennis. I'm not worried about it because everything
works just fine.. I.E. File transfers, internet browsing, downloading
email transfers...ect..ect.. But my whole point is in trying to find
out if this is a kernel bug in 2.4.20 or netstat. The bug being the
fact that this MSS value is being reported incorrectly. I think its a
Kernel bug because If I use "route -nee" I get the same info. Maybe I
don't have something checked in my kernel menu-config that needs to be
checked so that these values I.E.. "mss".. are reported correctly. Or
am I completely missing something. This is also why I wanted to see
what other peoples experiences and "netstat/route" output generated.

> BTW: MTU != MSS
Yes thanks. I knew this already.

> MSS should be MTU - 40. But I don't think netstat is telling the
> truth here...

What makes you say the above Dennis? I would like some facts if
possible. From what I've read and come to understand sofar is that both
an IP header and TCP headers are 20 bytes in size. So this value would
= 40.
So are you saying that Netstatand Route somehow says "no matter what"
subtract -40 bytes for IP and TCP headers?
Somehow that seems just as strange as your output of MSS ='ing "0". But
then again this is all pretty new to me so I will be researching more
of this as well as TCP and MSS and ethernet standards.

Thanks,
Joshua Banks

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to