Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet

A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to think more
about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:

----------------------------
revision 1.98
date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0
In syncache_respond() do not reply with a MSS that is larger than what
the peer announced to us but make it at least tcp_minmss in size.

Sponsored by: TCP/IP Optimization Fundraise 2005
----------------------------

In this change, we cap the advertised MSS in SYN/ACK to the received
advertised MSS, which presumably avoids an extra PMTU round trip if jumbograms
are enabled on the receiving endpoint. However, it also prevents use of
larger packet sizes if asymmetric MTU is supported. I think I suggested after
this was committed that we at least add an administrative twiddle to
enable/disable this mode of operation, but don't see one in there currently.
Does the Secure Computing scenario use TCP in this way, and is the potential
win in avoiding a PMTU round-trip worth disallowing asymmetric MSS at the TCP
layer?

In our case, TCP isn't aware of the MRU, and bases its MSS on the MTU values.
However, I don't see any reason for TCP to cap the MSS at the received MSS.
If the other end doesn't want to receive more than 1024 bytes, that's no
reason to refuse to accept more.

Mike
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TCP MSS issue
    ... > left in send buffer is less than the MSS? ... writing an invasive TCP packet proxy application, or writing a paper on TCP ... applications (which would be the only reason to ask about a socket option to ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: TCP MSS issue
    ... > left in send buffer is less than the MSS? ... writing an invasive TCP packet proxy application, or writing a paper on TCP ... applications (which would be the only reason to ask about a socket option to ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet
    ... think more about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one: ... advertised MSS, which presumably avoids an extra PMTU round trip if jumbograms are enabled on the receiving endpoint. ... Does the Secure Computing scenario use TCP in this way, and is the potential win in avoiding a PMTU round-trip worth disallowing asymmetric MSS at the TCP layer? ... There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to a GigE device and the card supports jumbo frames should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet
    ... about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one: ... advertised MSS, which presumably avoids an extra PMTU round trip if jumbograms are enabled on the receiving endpoint. ... Does the Secure Computing scenario use TCP in this way, and is the potential win in avoiding a PMTU round-trip worth disallowing asymmetric MSS at the TCP layer? ... "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • Re: Changing TCP MSS under LINUX
    ... That will cause TCP to send smaller segments to avoid fragmentation. ... The DF bit is not set in the header of the IP datagram carrying the ... If the fancy feature in the network cannot do either of these things ... I know following MSS manipulation mechanisms under LINUX: ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)