On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:20:50PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B wrote:
> However, I still think the ancillary data/socket option is not a bad
> idea, because
>
> - it is a natural generalization of IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU.
> - we do not have to worry about the kernel's behavior by introducing
> IPV6_USEMTU.
> - if we added a knob to disable kernel-level path MTU discovery,
> IPV6_USEMTU would be necessary.
> - IPV6_USEMTU does not require the super user privilege, because it
> only affects transmission from the corresponding socket.
> - IPV6_USEMTU does not need require administrator privilege.
>
> So, I'd like to hear others' opinions. Is it a good idea to introduce
> IPV6_USEMTU (instead of IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU)?
Note that for IPv4, NetBSD has a way to fetch path MTU information for raw
IP sockets. If an application gets an EMSGSIZE, it can do a getsockopt()
on the IP_ERRORMTU option to fetch the MTU that it should have used.
--
-- Jason R. Thorpe <[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
