> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > 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.
I will add something, but this sentence follows: If a node receives a Packet Too Big message reporting a next-hop MTU that is less than the IPv6 minimum link MTU, it MUST discard it. so I think the context was clear. Bob > >> 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 >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
