On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote: > >> 2. It's no longer necessary to manage 1500 byte+ MTUs manually > > > >But for this, there has been (for a long time now) a DHCPv4 option > >to give a client its MTU for the interface being configured (#26, > >RFC2132). > > Trying to do this via DHCP is, IMO, doomed to failure. The systems > most likely to be in need of larger MTUs are likely servers, and > probably not on DHCP-assigned addresses.
If you're bothering to statically configure a system with a fixed address (such as with a server), why can you not also statically configure it with an MTU? -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpBuU12jypmU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
