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

Re: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)

To: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>, pekkas@netcore.fi
Subject: Re: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
From: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, osprey67@yahoo.com
In-reply-to: <20031110173314.23014.qmail@web80510.mail.yahoo.com>

Hmm - I may have spoken too soon, as it looks like RFC 2675 has

some minimum packet sizing requirements that make it just a bit

too big to use over IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels. Maybe we should (bis) it?

Fred

osprey67@yahoo.com

Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com> wrote:

P.S. The document can be trivially extended to support IPv6

Jumbograms - this will be added in the next version

References:
- Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
  - From: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: RE: IETF 58 v6ops meeting baker-ipv6-renumbering slides
Next by Date: Accept ISP Scenarios Document as WG Draft?
Previous by thread: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
Next by thread: Re: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread