Mike Karels wrote:
A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to think more
about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
----------------------------
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0
In syncache_respond() do not reply with a MSS that is larger than what
the peer announced to us but make it at least tcp_minmss in size.
Sponsored by: TCP/IP Optimization Fundraise 2005
----------------------------
In this change, we cap the advertised MSS in SYN/ACK to the received
advertised MSS, which presumably avoids an extra PMTU round trip if jumbograms
are enabled on the receiving endpoint. However, it also prevents use of
larger packet sizes if asymmetric MTU is supported. I think I suggested after
this was committed that we at least add an administrative twiddle to
enable/disable this mode of operation, but don't see one in there currently.
Does the Secure Computing scenario use TCP in this way, and is the potential
win in avoiding a PMTU round-trip worth disallowing asymmetric MSS at the TCP
layer?
In our case, TCP isn't aware of the MRU, and bases its MSS on the MTU values.
However, I don't see any reason for TCP to cap the MSS at the received MSS.
If the other end doesn't want to receive more than 1024 bytes, that's no
reason to refuse to accept more.
Mike
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed to
accept a packet on an
interface that is larger than the mtu on that interface?
Steve
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
