On 01/03/2012 18:45, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 01/03/2012 10:22 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> ... and this is not a feature because? And no, don't quote the
>>> robustness principle. The floor for MTU has been hard-coded since day
>>> 1, so anyone who breaks that deserves what they get.
>>
>> Yes, I agree, the last paragraph of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-5 has been around
>> a long time, and IPv6 hosts should follow it.
>>
>> If there is consensus otherwise, we (the collective "we") need
>> to acknowledge what that breaks.
>
> It would be pretty dumb to break stuff with no gains.
Completely aside from the intrinsic value of "People who follow the spec
get the benefits of interoperability; people who don't, don't."
Not having to deal with an MTU of less than the minimum for IPv6 keeps
code simple. Simple is good. IMO that's a pretty big gain, and an
enormous loss if everyone who's ever deployed IPv6 code has to go back
and reexamine that fundamental assumption.
Doug
--
You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
