From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:27:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:27:30 -0500 Received: from minus.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.97]:42500 "HELO ms2.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:27:16 -0500 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200102191826.VAA12894@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: MTU and 2.4.x kernel To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:26:38 +0300 (MSK) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, roger@kea.GRace.CRi.NZ, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Alan Cox" at Feb 19, 1 01:44:12 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > We are implementing an IP stack. Alan, please, tell me what is wrong. And we will repair this. The implementation follows RFCs and even relaxes their requirements in the cases, when they are far from reality. Alexey