I’m beginning to get a feeling of Deja MTU… Acee
> On Sep 19, 2023, at 19:15, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5340, > "OSPF for IPv6". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7649 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > > Section: A.3.3 (in part) > > Original Text > ------------- > Interface MTU > The size in bytes of the largest IPv6 datagram that can be sent > out the associated interface without fragmentation. The MTUs of > common Internet link types can be found in Table 7-1 of [MTUDISC]. > Interface MTU should be set to 0 in Database Description packets > sent over virtual links. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Interface MTU > The size in bytes of the largest IPv6 datagram that can be sent > out the associated interface without fragmentation. The MTUs of > common Internet link types can be found in Table 7-1 of [MTUDISC]. > Interface MTU should be set to 0 in Database Description packets > sent over OSPF virtual links. This rule should not be applied to tunnel > or other software interfaces. > > Notes > ----- > OSPF Virtual links carry only OSPF packets so MTU negotiation is not needed > and this provision makes sense. For interfaces that have an actual MTU, even > though they may be "virtual" interfaces, they are not "virtual links" in the > intended meaning of this paragraph. As such, this change will provide > clarification and remove ambiguity from the current standard. At least one > popular router vendor implements this RFC as MTU = 0 sent on all GRE > interfaces which results in incompatibilities with most other router > platforms which expect an actual value. The router vendor points to this > provision in the RFCs as justification for their implementation. It is > (arguably) a legitimate, if nonsensical interpretation of the existing text. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5340 (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-23) > -------------------------------------- > Title : OSPF for IPv6 > Publication Date : July 2008 > Author(s) : R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, A. Lindem > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
