Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:13:06 +0300 (EEST) > From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | They probably need to be able to use tunneling, at least some of them. > > I agree. They're also one of the more likely users of unconfigured > tunnels (6to4) - they get one IPv4 addr, and offer IPv6 connectivity to > the end user, without requiring any other infrastructure to be operating.
At the moment, my view is that SOHO routers mostly use tunneling in order to connect to IPv6 networks (6to4 or configured tunnels). It may not be the prefered way in the future, but it is often the only solution today. > | But if they're designed so that they have problems with allocating 64 KB > | of memory, there's something about the design that's wrong IMO. > > I disagree there. I also disagree that being able to reassemble one > packet at a time is enough, just a small amount of IPv4 packet reordering > would blow away an implementation tried to reply upon that. > > 64K is too big. I think 1280 is too small. As I said in a message I > typed yesterday (but which would only have been sent an hour or so ago), > something in the 4K-8K region sounds to me like a size I think would cope > with any reasonable use (as you said, anyone sending 64K tunnelled > packets is probably DoSing you anyway - not certain, but probable) without > causing unnecessary IPv6 fragmentation requirements. In DSL environments, ATM is often used in the access network. Then, the MTU is often 9180. I think 9180 should at least be supported. The MTU processing is tricky to implement today, especially when dealing with several types of encapsulation. For instance in DSL environments, a SOHO router may have to deal with PPPoE, IPSEC and 6in4 encapsulation. Having a fixed value for 6in4 tunnel would make it easier. Vladimir -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
