On 01/27/2012 08:36 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > And I see no functional difference between the gateway and the host > generating the fragment ID, except that the latter approach seems to > require network-wide software updates currently.
Namely, are you saying that Linux won't react to an ICMPv6 PTB<1280 by inserting a Fragment Header in subsequent packets, or what? (last time I checked, I think this was the case) As noted by Dan Wing, there's stuff that would break. In any, please note the difference between *accepting* atomic fragments, generating ICMPv6 PTB when the MTU of the constricting link is < 1280, and reacting to ICMPv6 PTB by generating atomic fragments. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
