On 14-Nov-00 Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> I'm now considering UDP applications that are sensitive to path MTU
> (toward the destinations). I recalled a discussion about a new socket
> option "IPV6_USEMTU", which allowed an application to specify an
> appropriate path MTU for packets sent from the application. I checked
> the archive of this list in April 2000, and, to my suprise, the
> discussion suddenly disappeared without any consensus.
>
> => today only IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU seems to be defined, implemented and
> used (for instance by BIND and racoon, the KAME IKE daemon).
> I don't know if IPV6_USEMTU as you define is very useful but the
> getsockopt() counterpart (which gives the actual path MTU) *is* useful.
> Perhaps the getsockopt() with a standard way to disable fragmentation
> is enough (it should be enough for a traceroute_pmtu6)?
>
I agree, we need two things:
1) a new option for getsockopt() to get the actual path MTU (there is no
standard way to do that).
2) a new option for setsockopt() to disable fragmentation (until now, to do
that, we have to use non standard option like: IP_HDRINCL).
These two new options would be sufficient to code "traceroute_pmtu6" (in fact,
only one of them is necessary: 1) or 2))
Best regards,
----------------------------------
Yves Legrandg�rard
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14-Nov-00
Time: 10:18:20
----------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
