From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-150289-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1491381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun,  1 Sep 2013 17:55:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5FC46E0FBC;
	Sun,  1 Sep 2013 17:54:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD49E0FB6
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  1 Sep 2013 17:54:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hq12so1074664wib.0
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=lQPKiYKxKhkSRIu/TrIMOMmV07vtULMzgrg1cs+9CP8=;
        b=mp0O/w5rTSMKiKRl15bodptwIHEMdC7PWrwgqyofHj31jgoeBuqWxdeepGT6Udyu37
         9/ysjMsvIdEeIB5ih7GDr6ZL3USF/mHV3VKN8LMPvkRMQfL7879fpuHwQMsvHcbZhD8t
         SNWyKambKevJNbLWMHGGoPAHTGUf6ew6GC8JoaNBWuGbNJhLC44XYtcFsjHGyPLgTqqL
         zj3KdknOKsDfBfj0L4RFwQr7JQnXoKlqy/Xdj369K7wzbQjxSGCEMgLV9Jqgeyiab5+u
         6wPs5loClP5MatTwhflRVuOlbWJ3gsi6lY7HcJ2fXNDqTl/w6Kg8CyJa1B2dFysuhRjY
         keGw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.103.226 with SMTP id fz2mr293133wjb.52.1378058085557;
 Sun, 01 Sep 2013 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.93.199 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201309011753.17624.michaelkintzios@gmail.com>
References: <CAN0CFw1NOD-cfwwOZuU8geHbLP7kzgc9FRGa+3nRFp9sbBGowA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201309011643.52008.michaelkintzios@gmail.com>
	<CAN0CFw380fxRGVGNuOwM=_v5SydyL31tHswCrmXYQ8bjn9Or+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<201309011753.17624.michaelkintzios@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:54:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN0CFw2ux87m6FRoFwbhyAyM_X_M5Nw_iHiGow5Von1gx_v0FA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] PMTUD
From: Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com>
To: Gentoo mailing list <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 5be6b768-5844-49ca-be18-3686b2a4253f
X-Archives-Hash: 6d4f832cc501e764a4a93ddb3a4bab0e

>> OK, does PMTUD lower the outgoing packet size on my system due to the
>> hotel router's lower MTU or does the hotel router itself fragment my
>> 1500 byte packets in order to send them out?  Just curious.
>
> If you are sending out packets with the DF bit set no fragmentation will take
> place - the packet is dropped and an appropriate message is returned to
> sender.  Otherwise the router will fragment them and send them on to the
> recipient address.

Shouldn't PMTUD change my MTU based on the hotel router's lower MTU?

- Grant