Fred, >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:46 PM >> To: Ole Troan; Templin, Fred L >> Cc: ipv6@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> >> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard >> >> I agree with Ole. > > How so? A tunnel that crosses a 1280 MTU link MUST fragment > in order to satisfy the IPv6 minMTU. If it must fragment, then > an MTU-length IPv6 header chain would not fit within the first > fragment, and we have opened an attack vector against tunnels. > This is not a matter to be agreed or disagreed with - it is > a simple fact. right, and RFC2460 has this to say about it: IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280 octets or greater. On any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet packet in one piece, link-specific fragmentation and reassembly must be provided at a layer below IPv6. cheers, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail