mailing list archives
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:34:46 +0100
Firstly, please note the flamewar about NAT breaking or not breaking
PMTU discovery is a different flamewar from the RFC1918 numbered
links breaking PMTU discovery flamewar. And I am commenting here
on neither. The answers to both are clear if you read the
That is what I truly love about NAT.
It breaks totally inane filth like path mtu discovery.
Allegation of dubious merit aside:
Please suggest alternate legacy compatible mechanisms to
discover path MTU, or explain why you think fragmenting
stuff as a matter of course aides performance,
before you dismiss PMTU discovery as inane filth.
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.
Like, say, ethernet LAN -> dialup routed connection -> Internet.
Or, urm, anything tunnelled between ethernet LANs passing at
some point over ethernet. Both, of course, extremely
So now tell me why being unable to do path MTU discovery
(somehow) is a good thing?