In some mail from Dragos Ruiu, sie said:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2001, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with questioning the correctness of RFCs. They
> > were, after all, written by ordinary mortals like everyone in this
> > discussion.
> Certainly agreed. But I think the right way to do this is via changing
> the RFC in the IETF so that all the implementations are consistent rather
> than building yet another non-standard implementation of the standard.
Absolutely this needs to happen.
> > Maybe 256 is too high, perhaps 128 would be more reasonable. 64 seems way
> > too small in any case.
> where for some applications the representatives argued that 64 bytes was
> too large a packetsize (this particular debate was over 32 or 64 byte cells,
> and oddly enough they agreed on 48 for no particular reason other
> than to stop arguing :-).
Err, wasn't the result 53 ?
> IMHO It's actually a minimum... If I understand MSS application (which I feel
> I do) it's what the packet sizes the OS will fragment the data into to convey
> it efficiently across the channel, which works out into pretty much being the
> minimum packet size the OS will segment streams into. Please correct me if I
> have made an error, as I too am merely human.
MSS is the largest fragment the OS will send. It could send smaller ones
than the MSS value but that'd be inefficient. Larger ones are not going
to be well received, if at all.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message