Re: maximum size of packets from client to server

[Peter Gutmann <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz>]

der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG> writes:

>The main reason I considered it obvious is that neither of the other two
>interpretations seems useful to me: echoing back the values is pointless,
>since the channel open initiator (which may or may not be the client) already
>has them, and the channel open confirmer may use a smaller max packet size
>when sending data if it feels like it but there's no need to tell the open
>initiator about it.

The reason why the second interpretation could be argued to be useful is if
you see the exchange as:

Client: I propose a max.packet size of 128 MB.
Server: That looks a bit large to me, how about 64kB?

So the client is advertising what it's prepared to accept as a maximum, and
the server is either confirming it or saying it'd prefer a bit less, an
exchange a bit like some of the cipher suite-type negotiation.

Peter.