From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bakul Shah Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: <8635187C-8CB8-4483-B87D-6CF2A09063D6@bitblocks.com> Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 11:20:50 -0700 References: <87C61423-7C13-4516-88B5-C2ABA7D32AA9@me.com> <20150508211922.1118FB82A@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] fossil+venti performance question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 50bc8b76-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > On May 9, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On May 9, 2015, at 7:43 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:= >>=20 >> easy enough until one encounters devices that don't send icmp >> responses because it's not implemented, or somehow considered >> "secure" that way. >=20 > Oddly enough, I don't see this 'problem' in the real world. And FreeBSD i= s far from being alone in the always-set-DF bit. >=20 > The only place this bites is when you run into tiny shops with homegrown f= irewalls configured by people who don't understand networking or security. M= e, I consider it a feature that these sites self-select themselves off the n= etwork. I'm certainly no worse off for not being able to talk to them. Network admins not understanding ICMP was far more common 20 years ago. Now t= he game has changed. At any rate no harm in trying PMTU discovery as an opti= on (other than a SMOP).=