Hi Hemant, Sorry if I was not clear earlier.
Now that you agree that tunnelling/ transition mechanisms add headers and the MTU problem is solved for them. Think of a similar solution for the RH4 cases too. Thanks, Vishwas On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) <[email protected]> wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 3:07 PM >>To: Hemant Singh (shemant) >>Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email protected]; culler Culler >>Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header-00.txt > >>Hi Hemant, > >>When we do IP in IP tunneling, in that case too the packet size >>increases at an intermediate node. It is no different than this case. > > What intermediate node are we talking about for a tunneled packet? If > the tunnel ingress point has followed RFC 2473, the packet goes to the > egress without any MTU problems. See section 7-7.2 of RFC 2473. My > recommendation is to focus the discussion to the operational issue that > Erik raised and ascertain if the issue is a valid issue for the RPL > network or not. I see David Culler has already replied to Erik. > > Hemant > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
