I was reminded by the "packet modifications" thread that it seems that
dropping (rather than fragmenting) large UDP packets has become quite
the norm, which is unfortunate.
We're working on a (popular software) product that sends UDP datagrams
(with DF cleared), and it is amazing how small the
Only the end-to-end principle...
Perhaps not relevant, but between any two consenting nodes, there can
be severe mangling of headers as long as what comes out the other side
looks pretty much the same as what went in. CSLIP is an example of
this.
Regards,
-drc
On Sat, 31 May 2008 17:59:40 -0400
Jean-François Mezei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like any pointers to good documents that outline what sort of
> packet modifications are allowed (in terms of Internet
> culture/policies) by networks.
>
> Notably:
>
> For a transit network (neither send
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
--packet fragmentation due to inconsistent MTUs and/or bandwidth (e.g. moving
from ATM at 150Mbps to a fractional DS3 at 3.088Mbps)
MTUs yes, bandwidth no. Bandwidth congestion at the boundary to a slower
network will cause buffering and dropped packets, not a fragme
I'm not aware of any hard rules regarding this. I'll include yours below:
--packet fragmentation due to inconsistent MTUs and/or bandwidth (e.g. moving
from ATM at 150Mbps to a fractional DS3 at 3.088Mbps)
--ttl changes from hop to hop
--dest ip changes from hop to hop
--PAT/NAT changes in last
I would like any pointers to good documents that outline what sort of
packet modifications are allowed (in terms of Internet culture/policies)
by networks.
Notably:
For a transit network (neither sending or destination IPs belong to the
network)
For the sending network (originating IP belongs to
6 matches
Mail list logo
