On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:04:12PM +0200, Andreas Steinmetz wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Do you really need clamping? It's a hack, since TCP should do MSS negotiation > > itself. (Of course it may happen that some routers are broken.) But usually not > > for incoming packets. > > You never know when you hit ICMP blackholes, broken routers and other > evil things. Better safe than sorry so clamping is the way to go for me. I encourage you to report PMTUD Blackholes to the MSS Initiative at http://www.phildev.net/mss/ We'll notify them, and if we can't get them to fix it, blacklist them. We have more fixed sites than blacklisted sites, so it's at least somewhat successful. -- Phil Dibowitz [email protected] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- From: Krzysztof Oledzki <[email protected]>
- Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- References:
- Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- From: Andreas Steinmetz <[email protected]>
- Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- Prev by Date: Re: New format Intel microcode...
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/4] MAP_NOZERO v2 - VM_NOZERO/MAP_NOZERO early summer madness
- Previous by thread: Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- Next by thread: Re: mss to pmtu clamping partially broken?
- Index(es):
 |