Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS?

From: Crist Clark (crist.clarkat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 14:31:47 PDT

  • Next message: Radu-Adrian Feurdean: "Re: 2.4.x/Slackware Init script vulnerability"

    Pavel Machek wrote:
    > 
    > Hi!
    > 
    > > If any of you have tested what happens to the ability of a box to
    > > perform well when it has a small MTU you will know that setting the
    > > MTY to (say) 56 on a diskless thing is a VERY VERY bad idea when NFS
    > > read/write packets are generally 8k in size.  Do not try it on a NFS
    > > thing unless you plan to reboot it, ok ?  Last time I did this was
    > > when I worked out you could fragment packets inside the TCP header
    > > and that lesson was enough for me ;_)
    > 
    > AFAI can remember, there's minimum MTU defined for IP (something like 576)...
    > ...and then there are networks like hamradio that use lower MTU. They are
    > really non-compliant, but Linux wants them to work.
    
    No, there is no minimum MTU. However, all IP-compliant hosts must be
    able to handle 576-byte datagrams. That is, the network to which a 
    host is attached may have a smaller MTU, but the host must be able to
    handle reassembled datagrams that are 576-bytes long. The 576-byte 
    requirement is what the host's network stack must handle (that set of
    algorithms in software or hardware) and does not have anything to do
    with requirements on the network medium.
    -- 
    Crist J. Clark                                Network Security Engineer
    crist.clarkat_private                    Globalstar, L.P.
    (408) 933-4387                                FAX: (408) 933-4926
    
    The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential,
    intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If
    the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee
    or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
    hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
    of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
    e-mail in error, please contact postmasterat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jul 19 2001 - 09:17:53 PDT