Hi, Bob, AOK. Thanks,
Joe On 5/5/2017 5:32 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
