Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!imagen.UUCP!geof
From: geof@imagen.UUCP (Geoffrey Cooper)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP Datagram sizes
Message-ID: <8705251532.AA16982@imagen.uucp>
Date: Mon, 25-May-87 11:32:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: imagen.8705251532.AA16982
Posted: Mon May 25 11:32:42 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 26-May-87 01:47:59 EDT
References: <8705241321.AA05020@MCR.UMICH.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19

> I don't understand what this whole fuzz about messages to help negotiating
> the MSS is all about.
> will need to be changed.
> ...
> Third, the Berkeley folks have changed their MSS attitude considerably with
> the version 4.3bsd. The assumption now is to use local network sizes if
> you can be reasonably sure that the packets stay on the local physical
> network, and to use the only at least somewhat guaranteed maximum size
> of 576 bytes otherwise. This strikes me as an excellent idea.

What about subnets?  If I have a cluster of subnets, each of which has
an MTU of 1500 bytes, I really want the extra speed.  And todays
gateways, which generally don't keep up with the full LAN bandwidth,
make an excellent case for using large packets when sending to hosts
that are off the current network.

- Geof
---
{decwrl,sun,saber}!imagen!geof