> Yes. But somehow I'm worried about this, particularly when > the MTU size field in ND is 32 bits. Is there any danger that > a false claim of a large MTU size will lead to something > bad happening? Or are we relying on the sender's hardware > to not accept overly large packets for transmission?
Presumably a stack that implements such a future capability would need to verify that the driver/NIC don't fail if they are fed a too large packet. > So, one 9K probe is about the same size as the overhead > from extra 225 IPv6 headers. Using the standard 1500 byte > MTU you get to send about 337 K before spending this much > in overhead. That is, a 9K probe packet does not make sense > bandwidth-wise if you are communicating less than 337 K > with your peer. That is in terms of bandwidth overhead. I think the strongest motivation for jumboframes is that it reduces software overhead in the hosts with as much as a factor of 6 (due to having to deal with one sixth as many packets to transfer the same amount of bulk data). Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
