On 25/02/2015 21:15, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 25.2.2015, at 0.56, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> > wrote: >>>> should not send packets larger than 1500 octets unless it has assurance >>>> that the destination is capable of reassembling packets of that larger >>>> size. >>> I guess this is another MUST to be added to HNCP text (DNCP itself is >>> not IPv6-specific as such). >> You mean that every HNCP node MUST ba able to accept packets of up to 64kB? >> What’s the status of typical embedded stacks? > > Configuration dependant more than implementation at least in the few I have > played with, but usually they’re really short of RAM so usually configuration > is rather conservative. Sticking (say) DTLS in one is probably no-go due to > lack of computing power to start with so I am not sure this is that relevant. > > That said, from my point of view, if this is really thought to be an issue by > the WG, correct solution is to use TLS (+TCP) instead of DTLS (+UDP) in any > case.
I've thought about this in the Anima/GDNP context and reached the same conclusion. Why make life complicated when TLS makes it simple? Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
