* UDP MSS
[not found] <AANLkTi=qOQ0Rmyp78NEE9qSGOTFvgTDFSbDEDCtzoQ04@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2010-12-14 3:47 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 4:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Netfilter mailing list
In udp , there is no mss discovey.So , if we set DF bit in IP packet
and suppose an intermediate router does have disabled icmp-reply
(thru iptables ) and have less MTU than the sender.
Then , router will drop the packet ,How client know to fragment the
udp packet ?
-Ratheesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
[not found] <AANLkTi=qOQ0Rmyp78NEE9qSGOTFvgTDFSbDEDCtzoQ04@mail.gmail.com>
2010-12-14 3:47 ` UDP MSS ratheesh k
@ 2010-12-14 4:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 6:01 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 10:00 ` ratheesh k
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2010-12-14 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ratheesh k; +Cc: Netfilter mailing list
On Tuesday 2010-12-14 04:46, ratheesh k wrote:
>In udp , there is no mss discovey.So , if we set DF bit in IP packet and
>suppose an intermediate router does have disabled icmp-reply (thru iptables
>) and have less MTU than the sender.
>
>Then , router will drop the packet ,How client know to fragment the udp
>packet ?
It won't, that's why ICMP should not be blocked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 4:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2010-12-14 6:01 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 10:00 ` ratheesh k
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Netfilter mailing list
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-12-14 04:46, ratheesh k wrote:
>
>>In udp , there is no mss discovey.So , if we set DF bit in IP packet and
>>suppose an intermediate router does have disabled icmp-reply (thru iptables
>>) and have less MTU than the sender.
>>
>>Then , router will drop the packet ,How client know to fragment the udp
>>packet ?
>
> It won't, that's why ICMP should not be blocked.
>
What will be the default MSS .How is it determined ?
-ratheesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 4:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 6:01 ` ratheesh k
@ 2010-12-14 10:00 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 12:21 ` John Haxby
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Netfilter mailing list
How udp determines maximum sustainable MSS ?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-12-14 04:46, ratheesh k wrote:
>
>>In udp , there is no mss discovey.So , if we set DF bit in IP packet and
>>suppose an intermediate router does have disabled icmp-reply (thru iptables
>>) and have less MTU than the sender.
>>
>>Then , router will drop the packet ,How client know to fragment the udp
>>packet ?
>
> It won't, that's why ICMP should not be blocked.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 10:00 ` ratheesh k
@ 2010-12-14 12:21 ` John Haxby
2010-12-14 13:40 ` ratheesh k
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: John Haxby @ 2010-12-14 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ratheesh k; +Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Netfilter mailing list
On 14/12/10 10:00, ratheesh k wrote:
> How udp determines maximum sustainable MSS ?
Unless I'm much mistaken, the concept doesn't apply. UDP doesn't have
an MSS and "maximum sustainable MSS" would imply a connection that isn't
there are well.
jch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 12:21 ` John Haxby
@ 2010-12-14 13:40 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 13:45 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Haxby; +Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Netfilter mailing list
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/10 10:00, ratheesh k wrote:
>>
>> How udp determines maximum sustainable MSS ?
>
> Unless I'm much mistaken, the concept doesn't apply. UDP doesn't have an
> MSS and "maximum sustainable MSS" would imply a connection that isn't there
> are well.
>
> jch
>
>
Coool .So udp fragmentation is done by ip layer.no mss.
-Ratheesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 13:40 ` ratheesh k
@ 2010-12-14 13:45 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 14:18 ` ratheesh k
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2010-12-14 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ratheesh k; +Cc: John Haxby, Netfilter mailing list
On Tuesday 2010-12-14 14:40, ratheesh k wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 14/12/10 10:00, ratheesh k wrote:
>>>
>>> How udp determines maximum sustainable MSS ?
>>
>> Unless I'm much mistaken, the concept doesn't apply. UDP doesn't have an
>> MSS and "maximum sustainable MSS" would imply a connection that isn't there
>> are well.
>>
>> jch
>>
>>
>
>Coool .So udp fragmentation is done by ip layer.no mss.
Fragmentation is always done by the IP layer, even with
protocols like TCP.
You must mix up fragmentation and segmentation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 13:45 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2010-12-14 14:18 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 14:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: John Haxby, Netfilter mailing list
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
> Fragmentation is always done by the IP layer, even with
> protocols like TCP.
> You must mix up fragmentation and segmentation.
Jan,
what will be normal size of udp segments ?
-Ratheesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 14:18 ` ratheesh k
@ 2010-12-14 14:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 14:57 ` ratheesh k
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2010-12-14 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ratheesh k; +Cc: John Haxby, Netfilter mailing list
On Tuesday 2010-12-14 15:18, ratheesh k wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
>
>> Fragmentation is always done by the IP layer, even with
>> protocols like TCP.
>> You must mix up fragmentation and segmentation.
>
>Jan,
>
> what will be normal size of udp segments ?
Counterquestion because yours does not seem to make sense: what is a
normal size for TCP?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: UDP MSS
2010-12-14 14:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2010-12-14 14:57 ` ratheesh k
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ratheesh k @ 2010-12-14 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: John Haxby, Netfilter mailing list
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
> Counterquestion because yours does not seem to make sense: what is a
> normal size for TCP?
>
Jan,
I got it. Thanks a ton.
-Ratheesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-12-14 14:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <AANLkTi=qOQ0Rmyp78NEE9qSGOTFvgTDFSbDEDCtzoQ04@mail.gmail.com>
2010-12-14 3:47 ` UDP MSS ratheesh k
2010-12-14 4:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 6:01 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 10:00 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 12:21 ` John Haxby
2010-12-14 13:40 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 13:45 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 14:18 ` ratheesh k
2010-12-14 14:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-14 14:57 ` ratheesh k
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.