[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: transition mechanism (tunnel MTU) comment

To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
Subject: Re: transition mechanism (tunnel MTU) comment
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:06:58 +0100 (CET)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:11:14 -0800
Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
In-reply-to: "Your message with ID" <20021120160435.F21FB7AF@starfruit.itojun.org>
Reply-to: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org

> 	- 4400 MRU is fine compromise.  i would like to see smaller number,
> 	  but 4400 is okay.

As I tried to say on the slides the reassembly buffers, even if the 4400
number is changed to infinity (=64k), do not need to me larger than
the maximum interface MTU/MRU on the tunnel endpoint.

THus if you have a decapsulator attached to only Ethernet its reassembly
buffer size need not be more than 1500 bytes.
If attached to IPoverATM it would not be more than 9180 bytes (rfc 1626) etc.

Thus the draft is incorrect in stating the the reassembly buffer size is
tied to  the max MTU for the dynamic tunnel.

  Erik

References:
- transition mechanism (tunnel MTU) comment
  - From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>

Prev by Date: Re: transition mechanism (tunnel MTU) comment
Next by Date: Re: 6to4 security questions
Previous by thread: Re: transition mechanism (tunnel MTU) comment
Next by thread: firewalling points
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread