Agreed.
Let's ask some "running code" people some input about the practical
constraints.
/as
On 6/12/13 6:21 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
>>> So a limit of 128 would currently probably be ok, but I personally would
>>> prefer the limit to be a bit higher just to have some extra margin.
>> >
>> > I think we should advocate 256 as a target for hardware designers; we know
>> > that
>> > some of them have current hardware limits less than that, but a "SHOULD
>> > inspect 256"
>> > seems reasonable (and conversely, a "SHOULD NOT exceed 256" for hosts
>> > generating
>> > IPv6 packets).
>> >
>> > Given time (as somebody said, maybe ten years) this would palliate the
>> > problem.
>> >
>> > Brian
>
> Whilst I agree we need to take steps to simplify the problem, I'd like
> some feedback from hardware manufacturers either publicly or privately
> whether this limit is sufficient on its own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
