Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was > >>a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some > >>of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. > It follows RFC 2460, which states: > It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU > Discovery [RFC-1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path > MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 > implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to > sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation > of Path MTU Discovery. Seems to me, given the above wording, 2460 says Path MTU is a SHOULD, not a MAY. Note that the MAY is about _not_ implementing it (in some situations), not a "MAY" implement it in some subset of the comment cases. I.e, if node-requirements says MAY, I think that is a downgrade from the SHOULD in 2460 as quoted above. I don't think this document should be doing that. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
