Hi,
2010/10/9 Templin, Fred L <[email protected]>:
> End systems in end user networks that connect to the
> IPv6 Internet will likely want to configure IPv6 VPNs,
> e.g., so that they can securely connect to their home
> office networks. Those VPN links must present a 1280
> minimum MTU to upper layers, but if they traverse a
> link in the path with a too-small MTU then the end
> system will see an MTU underrun and will need to use
> IPv6 fragmentation.
>
> An IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel with a fixed static 1280 MTU is
I assume you were refering 6a44. The reason why 6a44 restricts 1280
MTU is IPv6 PMTU performance is not reliable practically, per Remi's
reponse to me. If PMTU could (and I think it should) perform well,
6a44 would permit more larger MTU.
For this bullet in sec5, draft-despres-softwire-6a44-00
o 6a44 Server functions refuse packets received from their IPv6
pseudo interfaces if their sizes exceed 1280 octets, with ICMPv6
Packet Too Big messages returned to sources as required by
[RFC2460].)
I think it could only apply to the case where the received IPv6
packets forwarded to the external domain. In the case the 6a44 server
does the hairpinning, the 6a44 server would refuse packets whose size
exceed (IPv4 MTU - 28) octets, with ptb ICMPv6 msg.
Thanks,
washam
> an example of a link in the path that could cause such
> an MTU underrun for end system VPN links. So, should we
> be concerned that tunnels with a fixed 1280 MTU would
> make life difficult for the common operational practice
> of end systems using VPNs?
>
> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Templin, Fred L
>> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 7:52 AM
>> To: Yiu L. Lee; Brian E Carpenter; Ole Troan
>> Cc: Softwires; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of
>> NativeIPv6across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
>>
>>
>> > CPE. This double tunneling tech seems scary.
>>
>> More to this point about double-tunneling, how were
>> folks thinking that IPv6 VPNs would be run over a
>> 1280 MTU IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel? That is double-tunneling,
>> and seems like it would be a quite common case, but the
>> MTU seems deficient. Should it use IPv6 fragmentation?
>>
>> Fred
>> [email protected]
>> _______________________________________________
>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>>
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
