It is an interesting draft, but I'm afraid you've re-created RFC 1063 (albeit using
IPv6 constructs). RFC 1063 was obsoleted by RFC 1191 at least partly due to
the requirement that all nodes implement the protocol in order for any useful path
MTU information to be obtained on a consistent basis - a feature shared by your
proposal. RFC 1063 suggested two methods for implementing such a scheme -
Transport Discovery and IP discovery - and it appears you have taken the low
road. But, I have seen some evidence lately that an efficient packetization layer
MTU discovery mechanism can be realized with no requirement for feedback
from the network and no requirement for an explicit probe response from the
destination.
That said, your draft does give me an idea. An issue for the packetization layer
scheme is to provide the lower layers with some way of knowing when a probe
is in progress, i.e., so that the lower layers can let the probe through. If the
packetization layer were to insert a hop-by-hop (or destination) option that
essentially amounted to a no-op, the lower layers could know that a probe was
in progress.
Your thoughts?
Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
Dear folks.
I'd like to discuss this draft "The PMTU Discovery for IPv6 Using Hop-by-Hop Option Header", it's not submitted yet. Before I propose, I want to listen some comments and opinion from IPv6 folks. I'll attack this draft. Please look into and response.
Daniel
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
