Hi Andrew, On Jul 29, 2022, at 11:14, Andrew McConachie <and...@depht.com> wrote:
> We don’t need a useful standard for NAT to recognize that most > implementations break PMTUD, and that those implementations of NAT are > deployed enough to make PMTUD significantly broken. I was really just suggesting that some measurement to support the assertion might be nice. >> So perhaps it's reasonable to say that the IETF use of MTU pre-dates >> Ethernet switch vendors' usage, since it pre-dates Ethernet switches, since >> it pre-dates Ethernet. > > Ok. But the text still isn’t clear on how many bytes are assumed to be > consumed by layer-2 protocols. I think the point is that it's not necessary to know that. > We don’t need to have a super tight definition of MTU to progress this > document. Implementors just need to know how big of packets they can transmit. The answer to that question for any particular interface (attached to any layer-2 network) is "that interface's MTU". Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
