Mark, Brian, Le 14 mars 2010 à 02:19, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 2010-03-14 13:46, Mark Smith wrote: > ... >> These are the sorts of scenarios which have made me wonder whether >> there should be some sort of mechanism to express different off-link >> and on-link MTUs or on-site and off-site MTUs (distinguished by an >> on-site aggregate prefix). > > I hope they're discussing that over in MIF. A different set of settings > (not just MTU) per prefix seems entirely rational; a nice large MTU > for a ULA prefix might make sense. 1. On-link path MTU being a well defined concept, having two different default transmit MTUs for on-link and off-link makes a lot of sense. +1 for this idea. +1 also for this discussion to take place in a larger context than the 6rd RFC. (But 6man could IMHO be a better place than MIF, because the solution also concerns single-interface hosts.) 2. Even better than TWO default transmit MTUs, hosts should in my understanding have FOUR: on-link and off-link, IPv4 and IPv6. Agreed? (Of course, hosts that discover larger MTUs for some e2e paths can, independently from default values, apply these MTUs to these identified paths.) Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
