In your previous mail you wrote:
The spec is clearly incomplete in this area.
I do think we want this to work for unconnected datagram sockets i.e. 1 is
not an option.
=> but 1 (connected sockets) should work of course.
Does the implementors have any preferences between #2 and #3?
Doing #3 would require defining a data structure containing an MTU field
plus a socketaddr_in6.
=> by problem with #3 is the path MTU is a property of the path, not
of an address, ie. with a routing header the path MTU can be different.
I know this is not implemented like that (ie. pMTU are cached by destination
address and if someone plays with a routing header one can spuriously
change the pMTU :-) but it should then we have to keep the distinction...
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: rfc2292bis is more than expired today...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
