Hi Washam and Fred, Le 9 oct. 2010 à 05:02, Washam Fan a écrit : > ... > 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. > ...
>>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Templin, Fred L >>> ... >>> 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? >>> ... Actually, the 6a44 specification should, instead of 1280, require IPv4 MTU - 28 octets, both for hairpinning and traversal cases. (It is only hosts that should better take 1280 as default MTU if not having reliable PMTU discovery.) I will check with co-authors to fix it in a later version. Thanks to both of you for the discussion. RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
