On 2/8/2016 1:27 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 2/8/2016 12:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>> Seems to me that we might be misreading the original proposal. There >>> are two ways to read it: >>> >>> 1) In future all Internet routing gear MUST NOT fragment IP packets. >> >> IPv6 is that future, FWIW. > > Hopefully yes. > > But is it written down anywhere that IPv6 routers MUST accept packets > up to the full IP payload? The conversation in this thread suggests > not. RFC2460 specifies both relaying and source/sink requirements. > One of the tricks the WiFi folk use to keep people upgrading is to add > a little suffix to the protocol. So folk started to look for > 802.11a/c/n/an. > > As a marketing matter, an IPv6f profile (f for FAST) might help grease > the skids a bit. If "f" = flawed, sure. Joe