[41473] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandin L Claar)
Mon Sep 10 17:21:15 2001
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:20:42 -0400
From: Brandin L Claar <claar@arl.psu.edu>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010910172042.A10225@arl.psu.edu>
Reply-To: claar@arl.psu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9nj7u7$cuc$1@ncc1701.cistron.net>; from miquels@cistron-office.nl on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:31:03PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:31:03PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same.
> Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that
> will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery.
And now I finally have something to add to this brilliant discussion.
That is what I truly love about NAT. It breaks totally inane filth like
path mtu discovery. I'm sure if someone had an MTU < ethernet on an
internal router they wouldn't need NAT breaking path MTU discovery to
bring it to their attention.
--
Brandin Claar
Network Analyst
Penn State Applied Research Lab
