I agree that the Tunnel-MTU derived method is not perfect by any means,
but it does represent the most agreed-upon compromise in terms of
implementation and running code at this time. It's a shame to have lost
that fact from the RFC today, as I doubt that we are going to finish
solving the generic issue in time for 6rd deployments to begin. C'est la
vie.
- Mark
On 3/16/10 2:40 AM, Durand, Alain wrote:
Wg,
As chairs, We’ve been looking at the MTU thread on 6rd. There has
been many good points made and we have had an healthy discussion.
It is now time to move on with the base spec. MTU is one of the
many operational issues with 6rd. The chairs and the authors
discussed a while back to have a companion document to 6rd that
will focus on exactly those operational considerations. We do
believe that the 6rd MTU discussion belongs there.
In order to not tie the hands of that new document, it will be
better if the base spec were to remain silent on the MTU issue.
This future operational document should be focused on 6rd and not
try to solve the generic tunneling MTU discussion.
The generic work is important too, and certainly need to find a
home. However this is a different topic, for future discussions
with our ADs.
- Alain & David.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
