Subject: Re: perhaps time to check our TCP against spec?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 04/07/1998 18:19:52
>Jonathan, just to be clear, I don't particularly care what you do. Your
>personal choices don't affect my decisions at all.
> Further, I am going to tell anyone at Stanford who asks me about which
> version of Unix to run, that they should NOT choose NetBSD, because
> Jason Thorpe (firstname.lastname@example.org) has deliberately made NetBSD's TCP
> violate historical practice, and that the NetBSD developers have said
> publicaly that they are not interested in supporting the requirements
> of instutions which, like Stanford, have large networks, with lots of
> legacy equipment, designed using the prevalent best-practice rules of
> the late 1980s and early 1990s.
> In those exact words.
> Fair warning.
>I suppose you won't be running BSD/OS, either.
Thanks. I am storing this away and I am going to show it to anyone who
asks me whether NetBSD has *really* stated they aren't interested in
supporting institutions with TCP/IP networks containing legacy hosts.
Personally no, I wont' be running BSDI, and I'd advise anyone who asks
me not to run it on the Stanford net, either. Not if they want
the best possible connectivity with all existing hosts.
>In any case, eventually we'll have Path MTU Discovery enabled by deafault,
>too, so I guess that's one more reason for you to not use NetBSD. Probably
>means you won't run Solaris or Digital UNIX, either. Or IRIX, for that
It it's perfectly possible to do PMTU without in_maxmtu.
The RFC says ``MAY'', not ``MUST''.
Jason, I have pointed out a flaw in your pet idea, and a flaw which
has a real impact. Because of that, you are resorting to taunts.
Is this an example of what you conisder ``acting professionally?''