On 10 feb 2011, at 0:26, David Freedman wrote:
Unless every packet you emit is ≤ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may solicit a TOOBIG that I'll have
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 feb 2011, at 0:26, David Freedman wrote:
Unless every packet you emit is ≤ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:15:52 GMT, David Freedman said:
these people are doing this by design, I think thats the point I'm
trying to get across, if you will never need to process TOOBIG in your
design, there is no need to accept it.
And how many networks break PMTUD because their design says
On 9 feb 2011, at 18:30, David Freedman wrote:
(yes, even ICMP TOOBIG
can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
NO.
Even if you run with 1280-byte MTUs everywhere so you'd think path MTU
discovery wouldn't be needed, this can still cause problems with IPv6-to-IPv4
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 feb 2011, at 18:30, David Freedman wrote:
(yes, even ICMP TOOBIG
can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
NO.
Even if you run with 1280-byte MTUs everywhere so you'd think path MTU
discovery wouldn't be needed, this can still
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, David Freedman wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 feb 2011, at 18:30, David Freedman wrote:
(yes, even ICMP TOOBIG
can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
NO.
Even if you run with 1280-byte MTUs everywhere so you'd think path
Unless every packet you emit is ¾ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may solicit a TOOBIG that I'll have to care about?
I can only think of three cases,
7 matches
Mail list logo
