Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:13:06 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| They probably need to be able to use tunneling, at least some of them.
I agree. They're also one of the more likely users of unconfigured
tunnels (6to4) - they get one IPv4 addr, and offer IPv6 connectivity to
the end user, without requiring any other infrastructure to be operating.
This sounds like a good way to encourage more users of IPv6, so we shouldn't
be doing anything to make it more difficult to achieve.
| But if they're designed so that they have problems with allocating 64 KB
| of memory, there's something about the design that's wrong IMO.
I disagree there. I also disagree that being able to reassemble one
packet at a time is enough, just a small amount of IPv4 packet reordering
would blow away an implementation tried to reply upon that.
64K is too big. I think 1280 is too small. As I said in a message I
typed yesterday (but which would only have been sent an hour or so ago),
something in the 4K-8K region sounds to me like a size I think would cope
with any reasonable use (as you said, anyone sending 64K tunnelled
packets is probably DoSing you anyway - not certain, but probable) without
causing unnecessary IPv6 fragmentation requirements.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
