Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!ddp+
From: ddp+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: KIP code and Ultrix
Message-ID: <kVaUKBy00UoJU7g4I3@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12-Nov-87 14:30:09 EST
Article-I.D.: andrew.kVaUKBy00UoJU7g4I3
Posted: Thu Nov 12 14:30:09 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Nov-87 14:48:39 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 14

What does not being able to receive back-to-back packets have to do with not
doing fragmentation?  If the gateway receives a single > 512 bytes packet it
should fragment it!  Of course if the gateway is going to fragment then the
MAC will have to reassemble.  PC/IP's have gotten away without reassembly for
quite some time, but only because they could receive 576 byte IP packets.  Of
course if there is a fragmentation happy gateway in the middle (like Bridge's)
then they lose...

>If the K-box can't handle 576 byte packets or do fragmentation and reassembly,
>then it violates RFC-1009, which specifes IP gateway behavior.
Be serious.  The Kinetcis box misses being RFC-1009 compatible in atleast 100
other ways.  What's one more?

Drew