[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: Thu, 01 May 2003 11:41:24 +0900
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: ftemplin's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:37:54 MST. <3EB009F2.4050909@iprg.nokia.com>

>> 	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
>It is true that 1280 is the minimum required value for an IPv6 link. But,
>the reason we use, e.g., 1500 for Ethernet instead of 1280 is that 1500
>provides greater efficiency w/o resulting in black holes or excessive link
>layer fragmentation. IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels should strike a similar balance
>by setting an MTU of up to 1380 bytes.

	i disagree.  what is the reasoning behind "1380"?

itojun

Follow-Ups:
- 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