On 2/26/2015 3:00 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:11 PM
To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
On 2/25/2015 4:01 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
...
I have proposed sending PTB with MTU less than 1280 before as well:
http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-linkadapt-01.txt
The idea is to enlist the original source’s aid in easing the frag/reass
burdens from the tunnel ingress and egress.
IMO, PTB is the wrong message for that.
What we have today is a "Type 0" PTB message.
There are may types for both IPv4 and IPv6.
For IPv4, e.g., PTB is type 3, code 4.
For IPv6, it would be type 2, code 0.
What I proposed was a "Type 1" PTB message.
For IPv6, did you mean type 2, code 1?
The problem is that legacy receivers will interpret type 2 and ignore
the code.
If you want a new kind of message that is a "soft" "too big", you'd need
to define a new type.
Regardless of how it's created, you're talking about a new message, and
that's out of scope for this doc (and this thread).
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
