> I know about that, but my question is whether i need to add a frag header
> everytime path mtu discovery fails (i.e. i get some mtu value < 1280 from
> the pkt too big message).
I assume the key part is inside the parenthesis above (I haven't
heard anybody refer to this as "failure").
In general I think that is the best approach.
Note that with SIIT translators the IPv6 node can tell that there
is a translator in the path (the destination address is an IPv4-mapped address)
but that isn't the case when there is a NAT-PR translator.
So apart from calling this "pmtu discovery fails" I agree with you.
Erik
> The only case when i think pmtu discovery can fail
> is in the "translator scenario" (do you know of any other cases??). But note
> that RFC 2460 says that we need to add a frag header "In response to an IPv6
> packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination....". I think it should be
> something like "Add a frag header when pmtu discovery to a destination
> fails" since we cannot distinguish the case when path mtu discovery is done
> from ipv6 to ipv4.
>
> regards,
> imran
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
