nanog mailing list archives
Re: packet loss question
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 03:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, cpolish () surewest net wrote:
Thanks for identifying the source, I wish more people did this. My nitpick is that RFC791 doesn't label MTU=68 as "standard"; it says (section 3.2, p.25):
RFC791 was written during the internet's anti-standard era.We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code
Current thread:
- Re: packet loss question, (continued)
- Re: packet loss question Job Snijders (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question Ken Chase (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question William Herrin (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question Ken Chase (Jul 08)
- Re: packet loss question William Herrin (Jul 08)
- Re: packet loss question jmkeller (Jul 08)
- Re: packet loss question William Herrin (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question Phillip Lynn (Jul 08)
- Re: packet loss question Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: packet loss question Mark Andrews (Jul 10)
- Re: packet loss question cpolish (Jul 11)
- Re: packet loss question Sean Donelan (Jul 12)
- Re: packet loss question cpolish (Jul 12)
- Re: packet loss question James R Cutler (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question Mel Beckman (Jul 07)
- Re: packet loss question Mel Beckman (Jul 10)
- Re: packet loss question James Greig (Jul 11)
- Re: packet loss question Mel Beckman (Jul 07)
