Hi Erik, Great if converging on solutions was so much easier, we should have tried that instead of why not to solve the issues. :)
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Erik Nordmark >> That said I have been trying to think of solutions to actually solve >> If the ROLL edge node did IP in IP tunnelling to the destination >> and always fragmented packets say greater than say 1000 bytes. Would >> that solve the issue? > > Yes, if you do ROLL edge-to-edge IP in IP tunnels then you can reuse 10+ > years of understanding of how to handle MTU, fragmentation etc. I agree. So we have some understanding here. It is edge to edge or edge to within the domain which is the case here. Another thing is we can have the MTU changes even with the IP in IP tunnels. >> Also I am not sure, if we can do it but if 15.4 said the IPv6 MTU is >> 1500 instead of 1280, wouldn't that solve the issue too? > > No change needed in 15.4. The question is whether it would help if RFC 4944 > was revised to require offering more than 1280 bytes of MTU to IP. > > I think that would help remove the fragmentation issue since a 1280 byte > packet would not need to be fragmented any more (assuming 1280+RH4 would be > less than the that required MTU.) I agree. That is the easiest solution and causes no new issues as the lower layer allows the fragmentation. I agree we still need to solve the ICMP issues in this case. > But one would still have some way to handle the ICMP error issue. Requiring > that all ROLL edge router rewrite the ICMP errors would be one way. That is correct. Thanks, Vishwas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
