Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
The suggestion to fallback on TCP feels like a hack.
It is not a hack, it is in the specs, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-18.1.1:
18.1.1 Sending Requests
The client side of the transport layer is responsible for sending the
request and receiving responses. The user of the transport layer
passes the client transport the request, an IP address, port,
transport, and possibly TTL for multicast destinations.
If a request is within 200 bytes of the path MTU, or if it is larger
than 1300 bytes and the path MTU is unknown, the request MUST be sent
using an RFC 2914 congestion controlled transport protocol, such
as TCP.
If someone wants to implement your suggestions, they are more than welcome, but it should be controlled by a parameter.
Should nobody commit to implement this feature request in one month or so, the track item may be closed.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.