Iljitsch,
> > By: "MRU", I mean the same thing as for "EMTU_R" (Effective MTU
> > to Receive) per ([RFC1122], Section 3.3.2).
>
> To me, that's not what "MRU" means. Also note that the same 18-year-
> old RFC tells us that a hardcoded limit is bad here.
OK; I will start using the term "EMTU_R" instead of "MRU" from
now on so that there is no confusion. (I believe the term "MRU"
came from one of the PPP specs and there they say that MRU can
be greater than MTU.) About a hardcoded limit, [RFC1122] says:
"DISCUSSION:
A fixed EMTU_R limit should not be built into the code
because some application layer protocols require EMTU_R
values larger than 576."
To me, this says that a *max* EMTU_R should not be set but
that it is perfectly OK to specify a *min* EMTU_R. [RFC791]
says only that EMTU_R must be 576 bytes or larger for IPv4;
all I am saying is: "if you configure a tunnel interface
over IPv4, set its EMTU_R to 2KB or larger".
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
