On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:28:35 +0000 Simon Kelley <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 28/02/16 10:47, ?? wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > I think it would be better to be "--tftp-blksize", as this is > > already defined in RFC 2347. If some buggy client said he want > > bigger, the server could reply --tftp-blksize is the maximum. > > I think that is a good suggestion. > > > > > In my understanding of TFTP, it would be strange that a client > > requested a big blksize option then deny fragmented packets. It's > > the client said he want a big one, not the server. Why fix this on > > server? > > Buggy clients happen. We already have the --tftp-no-blocksize option > for this sort of situation. > > > > > I think it would be a bad idea to request a super big blksize > > option to increase performance. I think the blksize option > > shouldn't bigger than Ethernet MTU. Because there are buggy client > > refusing IPv4 fragment and there is no fragmentation in IPv6. To > > get more speed, the right way is RFC 7440. However RFC 7440 is > > still not widely supported. If writing new code, I think it would > > be better to follow RFC 7440 way, and left those old buggy slow > > client behind. > > > > tftp is never going to be fast. Making it work with as many clients as > possible is the best we can hope. > > What do people think. > > - -tft-blocksize-max instead of --tftp-mtu? > I am not too picky on the naming of the option, but what would --tftp-blocksize-max=1300 --tftp-no-blocksize imply? With mtu, it is obvious that it is using this option where it would otherwise use the interface mtu, rather than the blocksize. > > Cheers, > > Simon. > > > > > > > > >> To: [email protected] From: > >> [email protected] Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 > >> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] add --tftp-mtu option to > >> set the MTU for the TFTP server > >> > > Thanks for that. > > > > > > I've somewhat reworked it so that the supplied MTU is a ceiling > > (ie, you can reduce the used MTU with the option, but not increase > > it.) That would seem to be safer. > > > > > > In the git repo now. Please shout if I've broken things for you. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > Simon. > > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
