--Yb+qhiCg54lqZFXW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 05:31:58PM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:
> > Ooops, I must have been confused. I think I confused the TCP MTU with
> > the PPPoE interface MTU. The latter was set to 1452. I've increased it
> > to 1492 which should be the correct value (8 bytes for the PPPoE header=
).
=20
> Hmm - if you just leave it alone, which value does it come up with?

Alright, I've remove "mtu 1452" from /etc/ifconfig.pppoe0 and also from
my "inetup" script. I've destroyed pppoe0 and re-established the
connection. It came up with 1492 as MTU for pppoe0. Thanks again, this
removes some noise from my configurations.
=20
> You then should recalculate the mssclamp value starting with the correct
> interface MTU.

I'm satisfied with 1440 for now.

> If you modified the interface MTU by yourself before, it's hardly a supri=
se
> that you needed a much smaller mssclamp value (not picking on you, just
> documenting for later googler's ;-} )

Sure, that was a stupid thinko but who ever claimed overloading acronyms
was a good idea anyway?

BTW, I've just notice "clear-auth-failure". Can you really use this to
reset the failure counter on the remote side? Does this mean the
support guys telling you "OK, that's it for today - try again tomorrow"
are liars or just clueless?

--=20
Christian
=20
As you can see, this a signature. It's not related to the contents of the
mail in any way. But you probably won't listen to me anyway, will you?

--Yb+qhiCg54lqZFXW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAQh6B0KQix3oyIMcRAlUSAJ9poskGUx6WoVceHrTh+GqEdz4m7wCfbzfi
26bNWYJInf/BzqFQKmYbDts=
=xB5c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Yb+qhiCg54lqZFXW--