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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> >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.

Correct me if wrong, but it appears the fragmentation header rule must be 
included also for the case of MTU 1280 when the IPv4 IP-IP tunnels have DF 
bit set.  Which appears to be the typical case, e.g. one major router 
vendor doesn't even support anything else.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings