stripped off some of cc:s.
>Yes, but as stated in the RFC this implies that the other tunnel endpoint
>might need to reassemble. I don't know the performance impact (processing
>as well as memory for the fragments) this will have. Clearly it is better
>if we can avoid lots of reassembly in routers.
I'm a bit concerned with scenarios like below:
- a bad guy transmits fake ICMPv4 too big packet
- tunnel router translates it into ICMPv6 without care
i'd need to think this through.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
