Hiya folks,

On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 06:13:11PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > Thus, MSS clamping should not be tied to NAT.
> 
> Ok, maybe not. I'm probably biased as I myself only need it on NAT routers.
> 
> Furthermore I believe routers never should touch anything beyound the IP
> header. NAT already breaks this law.
> 
> If the majority here believes otherwise I'll move the clamping over to
> the ip_output proper and add a "mssclamp" option to route(8), similar to the
> -mtu option.

looks a good place yes.... or (also) as an extra option to a network
interface?  there the mtu option allready specified anyway ... why wouldn't
be possible to just ifconfig it ? even if its an ethernet interface? and 
why would each ethernet driver interface need explicit support?

Cheers,
Reinoud