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

Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt

To: "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:09:15 +0900
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: ftemplin's message of Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:57:02 MST. <3EAD5D5E.3040405@iprg.nokia.com>

>I fail to see your point; how is 1280 "simpler" than 1380? It's
>just a static MTU assignment in either case. You will need to
>define "simplicity" for your arguement to even make sense.

	1280 is the only link MTU requirement value appears in RFC2460, and it
	is the minimum required value for any IPv6 links (which does not
	require wacky fragmentation header rule at the end of 2460 section 5).
	i dunno what word other than "simple" would capture this.

itojun

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
- Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
  - From: "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>

References:
- Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
  - From: "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
Next by Date: Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
Next by thread: Re: Path MTU for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread