>>>>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:00:33 +0100,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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...
I personally like #3, because it seems the most flexible one (e.g. to
contain the real "path" including all intermediate nodes - although
I'm not sure if this kind of stuff is worth implementing despite of
its complexity). But this will affect existing implementations, so I
won't insist on this idea. I vote for #3 if pre-implementors of this
option do not object. (We've not implemented this option yet.)
> PS: rfc2292bis is more than expired today...
Yes, but we've finally seen the latest one.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
