Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 5:19 PM > To: Mark Smith > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] SOFTWIRE working group last call on 6rd > > 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.
If you want to consider the IPv6 6rd global for off-site communications only, then that would be doable but I still think we should try for 1500 or larger instead of 1280 if at all possible. If you then want to consider an IPv6 ULA for on-site communications with larger MTU, that would be fine too. Within the customer site, however, both the 6rd global and ULA can be serviced using ISATAP if native IPv6 is not yet available. Fred [email protected] > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
