In article <20050622004304.320663BFE99@berkshire.machshav.com>,
Steven M. Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> 
> Option 2, or a variant thereof, strikes me as best.  The table came 
> more or less straight from the RFC, but that table is mostly an 
> artifact -- it was designed to deal with the then-existing base of 
> routers that knew what to do with a packet with DF set, but didn't know 
> how to set the desired MTU field.  That's ancient history; I suspect 
> that any router made in the last decade does it right or not at all.
> 
> Option 2 is probably best, but we may want to rethink the table.  The 
> current values are based on more-or-less obsolete hardware.

So... who wants to survey the modern Internet and publish a new RFC?


-- 
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l))))))  (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k)))))))    '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))