Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!think!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!MCR.UMICH.EDU!hwb
From: hwb@MCR.UMICH.EDU (Hans-Werner Braun)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Re: IP Datagram sizes
Message-ID: <8705270047.AA09686@MCR.UMICH.EDU>
Date: Tue, 26-May-87 20:47:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: MCR.8705270047.AA09686
Posted: Tue May 26 20:47:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 30-May-87 06:24:10 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 14

Gosh. It really looks as if you are interpreting me wrong. I am very much
in favor of longer packets. What I tried to describe, but may be I wasn't
clear enough, was that a solution will be intrusive for the hosts. The
simple scheme originally discussed just won't work. Nobody keeps you from
sending fragments for now and especially nobody is keeping you from doing
within your local environment whatever you please. If your Cray-2 sends
a graphics object stream to an IRIS you really don't want to put current
generation gateways into the middle anyway. In particular not if you 
think along the lines of the speed SGI is considering for the fairly 
near future. You even make a case for what I was saying, namely that we
need to develop link/physical level devices which do much better then 
the current 1500 bytes in use on Ethernets.

	-- Hans-Werner