Requirements for IP-in-IP Tunnel MTU Assurance

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Fred,

Please see the following draft which documents operational issues
relevant to v6ops and calls for a solution:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mtuassurance-00.txt

Please note that this obsoletes a previos draft called:
"Requirements for Link Adaptation over IP-in-IPv4 Tunnels".

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L 
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 3:40 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Requirements for Link Adaptation over IP-in-IPv4 
> Tunnels (was RE: Link Adaptation for IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels) 
> 
> Fred - please see:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-linkadapt-re
> qts-00.txt
> 
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 9:24 AM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Link Adaptation for IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels 
> > 
> > Does it still propose a protocol or protocol change?
> > 
> > I don't know offhand whether the charter of v6ops then precluded  
> > protocol work, and won't go into whether it was proper for 
> [MECH] to  
> > be done in v6ops. Given the present charter, I can treat it as a  
> > requirements document that may be asking for something like 
> the work  
> > you are proposing. But my read of the document you pointed to 
> > is that  
> > it is still proposing an incompatible change (as in "unchanged  
> > equipment will not perform the function and once the message is  
> > segmented in this fashion it must be reassembled in this fashion.
> > 
> > I think that has to be done in a WG chartered to do non-backward- 
> > compatible changes to IPv4.
> > 
> > On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > 
> > > Can this work be contributed as an extension to [MECH]?
> > >
> > 
> 
>