Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

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

 



Hi, Stewart,


On 4/24/2017 10:12 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Minor issues:
>
>  A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the Path MTU below the IPv6
>  minimum link MTU.
>
> SB> I missed this last time.
> SB>
> SB> Presumably you mean "A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the 
> SB> Path MTU below the IPv6 minimum link MTU in response to such
> SB> a message."
This seems fine to me, FWIW - i.e., limiting the advice in this doc to
the mechanism in  this doc.

> SB> 
> SB> Otherwise I would have thought that this was entirely a matter 
> SB> for the host whether it wanted to use a Path MTU below the IPv6 
> SB> link minimum. Nothing breaks if the host takes a more conservative
> SB> decision.
I don't agree; the host at that point is violating RFC2460. It should
never think that an IPv6 link or path with an MTU below what RFC2460
requires is valid.

Joe




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