Personally I think any TCP implementation must support PMTU
discovery,
regardless of whether it's an offloaded implementation or in the
host
stack.
Specifically RFC 1191 (for IPv4) and RFC 1981 (for IPv6). Both
are
standards track.
However, understood though that RFC 1122
technically doesn't require
their implementation (but it was written back in
*1989*). However,
section 3.3.3 does state normative requirements,
particularly if you
don't implement PMTU discovery (EMTU_S set to <= 576
bytes if not on the
local link). Further, the algorithm is *freakin* old
(technical term),
and a much better algorithm is to implement PMTU
discovery...
Jim
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-iwarp-tech at io.iol.unh.edu [mailto:owner-iwarp-
> tech at io.iol.unh.edu]
On Behalf Of Barry Reinhold
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 1:47
PM
> To: RDDP
> Cc: iwarp-tech at iol.unh.edu
> Subject:
iwarp-tech Path MTU discovery
>
> To: Parties who are interested in
performing iWARP conformance testing
> Re: Conformance Test Suite Design
Issue
>
> In attempting to design a rigorous iWARP conformance test
I am looking
> at changing the EMSS in the DUT during a connection via
changes in the
> path MTU. It is not clear to me that this is a good idea
as I fear
there
> may be limited support for path MTU
discovery.
>
> Please email me directly if you care and have an
opinion that you
don't
> want to post.
>
> Barry
Reinhold
> Lamprey Networks
> bbr at lampreynetworks.com
> (603)
868-8411
>
>
>
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp