Subject: (IPng 6425) Re: Host Fragmentation

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:05:12 -0700

Matt Crawford writes:
	I see no implications there for fragmentation at the source instead
	of at a router.  In fact, nothing in the article states that IP was
	used for the comparison at all.

Yes, it was IP (TCP in fact) that was used in generating the numbers
mentioned in the Infoworld article.

However, I agree with Matt that this contributes nothing to the debate over
where to do fragmentation.  It colaborates the results previously done by
the Cray folks (Dave Borman?) over HiPPI which showed for all other things
equal that large MTUs are good, but that probably doesn't surprise anybody.

The only IPv6 issue that this might touch on, is the recent Path MTU vs. no
Path MTU debate.  And there I think it shows that the decision reached in
the working group (doing Path MTU is good in case larger MTUs become
commonplace) was the right one.

--Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:26:16 -0400

i just hate it when my host computers have to get broken up....

	-mo