> As I said I would do in my 10/29/2003 note on the ipv6 list under > the subject heading: "Re: RFC 2461bis issue: MTU handling", I am > now prepared to submit a new version of my document on dynamic > MTU determination. (Please note that there are some significant > differences from the previous version.)
I looked over the your document and I wonder how it applies to the WG's desire to clarify the transition mechanisms document and move that to Draft Standard soon. Thus I recommend the WG participants read the document so we can discuss that high-level issue on Wednesday. >From one reading I see: Using period(?) hop-by-hop options in data packets to probe the IPv6 path MTU; those packets would be processed slowly by IPv6 routers. IPv6 fragmentation by IPv6 routers; not allowed per RFC 2460 Assuming security associations between the encapsulator and decapsulator Having decapsulators that are otherwise hosts send Router Advertisements seems a bit odd. I don't understand how the IPv4 path MTU is detected by the encapsulator/decapsulator somehow. Is this based on ICMPv4 packet too big message or something else? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
