I agree with Ole.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ole Troan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:17 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
>
> Fred,
>
> > Hi, I would like to make a small amendment to what I said in my
> > previous message as follows:
> >
> > 4) Section 5, change the final paragraph to:
> >
> > "As a result of the above mentioned requirements, a packet's header
> > chain length MUST fit within the Path MTU associated with its
> > destination. Hosts MAY discover the Path MTU, using procedures
> such
> > as those defined in [RFC1981] and [RFC4821]. However, if a host
> does
> > not discover the Path MTU, it MUST assume the IPv6 minumum MTU of
> > 1280 bytes [RFC2460]. The host MUST then limit each packet's header
> > chain length to the Path MTU minus 256 bytes in case additional
> > encapsulation headers are inserted by tunnels on the path."
>
> I would claim that additional encapsulation headers are already
> considered in the 1280 minimum MTU.
> as in: 1500 - 1280.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
