Robin, Excerpting from what you wrote:
>Yes, but fragmentation in the network was not included in IPv6 and I >am keen not to have it in ITRs, ETRs or in the path between them. Fragmentation in the network in IPv4 is useful as long as it can be detected and tuned out as earlier as possible. Adding clarification to what I wrote in a previous message, removing in-the-network fragmentation from IPv6 was not necessarily a wrong decision but IMHO defined its domain of application as being most appropriate for edge networks and end system addressing. >> I'll take reliable over fast. > >I think RFC 1191 is reliable if PTBs are not filtered. It is not a >serious problem if the odd PTB is lost due to congestion. Loss due to congestion is one dimension; loss due to router rate limiting of ICMPs is another. Both are exacerbated by multiplexing thousands of streams over a path that has recently been rerouted over a restricting link. Also to be considered is that ICMP PTBs coming from the Internet are essentially produced by anonymous routers; they can therefore be sourced by *any* rogue node on the Internet. >> Actually, it would be interesting to do some research into the MTU >> distribution across the internet. > >Indeed. But, that is exactly where the RFC1191 "plateau table" came from, and AFAICT that has not done us a lot of good. At best, it can only represent a snapshot in time and cannot address what is really needed: support for true MTU diversity in the Internet that works both now and into the future. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
