John, > I think it would be unrealistic to say tunnels SHOULD have a MRU of at
> least 2048 given the preponderance of gear that only supports 1500 > bytes. However, it's relatively easy for non-4821-capable protocols to > limit sizes to something a little smaller that will provide adequate > headroom for tunnel headers. But, what is more realistic? To ask decapsulating tunnel endpoints to set an MRU that is slightly larger than the MTU of the underlying interface, or to ask non-4821-capable protocols (and/or applications) to reduce the maximum size of the packets they send? I believe it is common for systems to expose MRU as a configurable option in the former case, whereas application/protocol changes might be necessary in the latter case. Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -John > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
