Re: transmech MTU comments

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, bill wrote:
> 	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)

Sure, but ...
 
> > > 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?

As far as I understand, the proposition was to solve the problem at
the IP layer, not L2 what was the case (AFAIK) a decade ago.

I have nothing against L2 solutions as long as they're transparent to
IP, and that's certainly not a research topic :-).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings