Re: transmech MTU comments

[bill <bmanning@karoshi.com>]

> >   Do we, or do we not want to allow for the possibility of
> >   future L2 bridges, switches, hubs etc. that connect media
> >   with dissimilar MTUs but that don't get involved with
> >   L3 functions like IPv4 fragmentation and sending
> >   "packet too big" ICMPs?
> 
> No, I don't believe this is an immediate goal.

	Hum... lost knowledge.  anyone here still remember the
	MTU mismatches btwn 802.3, 802.5 and FDDI?  there were
	any number of L2 bridges that did the negotiation to
	LCD-MTU w/o mucking w/ L3 functions... (to the extent
	possible)

> > So, why can't we set the MTU of our 802.11 interfaces to
> > 2312 and take immediate advantage of the 35% gain in
> > efficiency? Because there might be an 802.11/Ethernet
> > L2 bridge somewhere on the path and IPv4 path MTU
> > discovery would break!
> > 
> This seems to be close to a pre-engineering/research question at the
> moment;  not something I think is suitable for inserting into a
> specification moving towards Draft Standard.

	see above.  why is a problem solved more than a decade ago
	now a research topic?

> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the

--bill