Re: transmech MTU comments

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>  Do we, or do we not want to allow for the possibility of
> >>  future L2 bridges, switches, hubs etc. that connect media
> >>  with dissimilar MTUs but that don't get involved with
> >>  L3 functions like IPv4 fragmentation and sending
> >>  "packet too big" ICMPs?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >No, I don't believe this is an immediate goal.
> 
> "Immediate goal" was not the question; "allow for the
> future possibility of" was the question. I would have a
> hard time believing any one of us could honestly
> answer "no" to the latter.

Ok, trying to clarify what I said.

No, I don't believe it's an immediate goal to provide future
possibility of [...].

That doesn't mean we may want to start building that future
extensibility in a couple of years (for example), but providing that
future extensibility does not seem a requirement *at the moment*.

There's just no way to provide future extensibility possibility for
every possible future, while staying robust and simple for the
mechanisms and methods that exist today.  Future extensibility is a
tradeoff just like any other..

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