> Does that mean no app should send more than 576? Dino, I am not sure what to say in response to this other than you must not be reading my messages. I want apps to be able to use whatever packet size gives them the best performance *even if the packet size exceeds the path MTU*. Also, to dynamically tune their packet sizes in case network conditions change and even use jumbos if they want and if the path will support it. If that has not come across to you, please go back and read my messages.
Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2021 3:58 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> > Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact > features do we want from the Internet? > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > > <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > Dino, my response to your response is "MTU diversity everywhere, with 576 > > as the > > minimum cell size". I know Joe won't like that, but I can't get him to give > > a straight > > answer. > > Does that mean no app should send more than 576? That would be a bug, a major > performance bug. And you would be way too late to the > table. If it was the minimum an app has to send, that is a bug too and tardy > as well. > > So let’s move on to requirements again. I bet this list is bored with the > topic. > > Dino= _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
