Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12.txt> (IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option) to Experimental RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I will repeat what I said; getting this right the first time is trivial and ignoring it the
first time ruins the opportunity to use it for bigger and better purposes for forever.

Bob objects that there has been little uptake in jumbograms, but the correct
statement is that there has been little uptake *until now* - IP Parcels will change
all of that. And, not just for the local link, but over the entire path.

An example: Source -> 4M -> 2M -> 512K -> 256K -> 1M -> 3M -> Destination.
In that case, the MTU option had better report 256K.

I will now briefly take up the subject of bull-throwing. I think many of the people
we have seen in these discussions and elsewhere are very skilled in the art of
throwing the bull. Some virtuous few others are genuine in their approach and
want the best technical outcome. I would say to them be authentic; be genuine;
be yourself, and do not succumb to the ways of the hardcore bull-throwers.

Thanks - Fred

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux