Jamie Curmi wrote:
>Although the "m" stands for "maximum", the idea of the mtu is not to limit
>the size of the packets you send. The kernel, as I understand it, should
>take the larger packet, split it up to packets smaller than the mtu of the
>interface, send them, and re-assemble them at the other end.
As I recall, there is no obligation to re-assemble them at the receiving
end. Large packets (datagrams) are allowed to be split in transit, and
delivered out of order. However, I could be mis-remembering, so check a
good TCP/IP reference.
>Tiger does this on en0, but not on lo0. Tiger seems to be the only platform
>acting this way with local host. Looks like a bug to me...
I agree.
>Anyone from Apple have a comment?
I think their comment will be "Please file a bug-report."
<http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter>
>Exceptions were left out in order to give the mailing list the smallest
>sample code I could. Same with comments.
The result is no way to distinguish Send working from Send failing. Since
you specifically mentioned that no datagram was ever RECEIVED, it occurred
to me that perhaps no datagram was ever SENT, but you couldn't actually
tell the difference.
Compare and contrast with Receive, which displayed something about what it
received, or was silent on IOExceptions.
I propose that one extra line to print a stack-trace is worthwhile if it
disambiguates your results between success and failure:
Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
-- GG
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
