[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > Of course, specifying a minimum required support in each transport > mapping is also appropriate. In fact, syslog-transport-udp sets two > separate minimums: for IPv4 and IPv6. If we did not specify a minimum > in syslog-protocol, one can infer the minimum based on the least > common denominator of transport protocol used. That's fair. But I just > don't see a harm in what was done in the current draft (after very > long discussions I might add). I can only a see a very hypothetical > scenario where some future transport protocol has MTU smaller than the > what IPv4 and IPv6 uses. In this case a minimum requirement may be > problematic. How much lower than 480 octets can it go with a > ~100-octet syslog header?
I think you mean network protocol, not transport protocol. IPv6 has a larger minimum packet size than IPv4 and unless there is a new IETF backed network layer protocol that has a smaller protocol header than IPv4, I can't see the minimum MTU getting any smaller. Are you suggeting something like syslog over ATM or syslog over PPP as an example ? Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
