> since there's no standard, some implementation can be picky and
> assume MRU == MTU. maybe RFC2893 should talk more about MRU and MTU.
How about:
A node implementing RFC 2893 MUST be able to reassemble IPv4 packets
of a size up to and including 65353 octets and MUST NOT place
any limits on the size of the received encapsulated packets.
In particular, it MUST NOT assume that the maximum size of
received packets has anything to do with the MTU for the tunnel.
Of course, it might also make sense to add some SHOULD (or MUST?) to
section 3.2 in RFC 2893 to make IPv4 MTU discovery across the tunnel
seem less optional than what the current text says.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
