On 20/08/2014 11:24, Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > On 08/19/2014 07:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> It does seem kind of silly that we say "you must support MTU >= 1280 to run >>> IPv6" and then allow PTB packets with an MTU < 1280. Any reason we can't >>> simply say that PTB packets < 1280 are invalid? >> Because of SIIT, that is equivalent to saying that the minimum IPv4 >> MTU is now 1260. That might be a discussion worth having, but 576 has >> been around for a long time. > > Not sure what you meant about 576... that we can assume that to be a > minmum MTU,
Yes, that hasn't changed since RFC 791 (although the way fragmentation is defined for IPv4 is rather different from IPv6, of course). Maybe we consider it acceptable that SIIT will break on paths that include a shorter-than-Ethernet link MTU. But we need to make that statement explicit. Brian or something else? > > Thanks! > > Cheers, _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
