0cde3c35   
   From: rick.jones2@hp.com   
      
   David Schwartz  wrote:   
   > So what? A UDP packet doesn't have to contain an entire UDP   
   > datagram.  There's no reason a 1,500 byte UDP packet can't contain   
   > part of a UDP datagram containing, say, 15,000 bytes of data.   
      
   That wording makes it sound like UDP has fragmentation and reassembly   
   akin to TCP's segmentation and reassembly, which it does not have.  A   
   UDP datagram is "always" a UDP datagram.  Now, when it is given to the   
   nefarious clutches of IP, the IP datagram carrying the UDP datagram   
   might be broken up into various IP datagram fragments, but those are   
   IP datagrams not UDP datagrams.   
      
   rick jones   
   --   
   Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.   
   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)   
   feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)