Next message: Bruce Pinsky: "Re: Load balancing"
- Previous message: Jo Rhett: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Maybe in reply to: Joe Maimon: "barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Next in thread: Min: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Reply: Min: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Reply: Joe Maimon: "Re: barak-online.net icmp performance vs. traceroute/tcptraceroute, ssh, ipsec"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
> Lower than 1500 mtu always requires some kind of hack in real life.
>
> That would be the adjust-mss which is the hack-of-choice
note that using 'adjust-mss' only adjusts the MSS for TCP.
it won't do much good for already-encapsulated IPSec traffic with protocol 47
or tunneled over UDP...
cheers,
lincoln.