Re: transmech MTU comments

[bill <bmanning@karoshi.com>]

> > > > 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 :-).

	read Freds note carefully.  "...might be an 802.11/Ethernet L2 bridge..."
	which clearly calls out a L2 device.  The kicker is that pesky
	802.3 spec that calls for a 1500 mtu. darn that pesky ethernet
	replacement spec that everyone trys to use as a default for transit
	infrastructure... 

--bill