[15094] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: MTU of the Internet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Ford)
Sat Feb 7 00:03:34 1998
From: Peter Ford <peterf@microsoft.com>
To: "'Phil Howard'" <phil@charon.milepost.com>, ltd@interlink.com.au
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:53:31 -0800
There are other techniques such as split-TCP and Snoop that can be applied
in place of a POP based Web cache.
On the other hand, RAS/NAS servers that are under-buffered are not part of
the solution space.
trenchingly yours,
peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Howard [SMTP:phil@charon.milepost.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 7:32 PM
> To: ltd@interlink.com.au
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: MTU of the Internet?
>
> > perhaps this is one of the not-so-obvious benefits of running a web
> > proxy cache such as squid. the greater internet can have larger
> > packets floating around, and the local proxy of the ISP can deal with
> > horrible tcp stacks, retransmissions and client machine with small
> > receive buffer sizes.
>
> And imagine having 2 interfaces on this machine, one with MTU=1500 and
> one with MTU=576.
>
> --
> Phil Howard | no33ads4@dumb5ads.org ads6suck@dumb2ads.org
> stop3it7@spammer9.com
> phil | no0way72@lame7ads.net die8spam@no99ads1.net
> eat7this@anyplace.com
> at | w5x8y4z5@anyplace.com stop2it1@spammer0.com
> a9b0c8d8@noplace4.com
> milepost | die6spam@noplace8.com end6it79@no2place.com
> a5b0c5d3@s0p8a2m1.edu
> dot | crash053@anyplace.org crash981@spam6mer.com
> end8it77@dumbads7.org
> com | no20ads6@anyplace.org stop6221@dumb3ads.com
> ads9suck@no7place.net
