[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Nodes MUST always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
> > > does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
> > > fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission
> > > of fragment headers need to impose a limitation to the payload size
> > > of layer 4 protocols.
> >
> > This would seem inconsistent with the following wording in RFC 2460:
> >
> > In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination
> > (i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the
> > originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message
> > reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280. In that case, the IPv6 node
> > is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less than
> > 1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets so that the
> > IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router can obtain a suitable Identification
> > value to use in resulting IPv4 fragments. Note that this means the
> > payload may have to be reduced to 1232 octets (1280 minus 40 for the
> > IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment header), and smaller still if
> > additional extension headers are used.
> So, this should be changed to:
> Nodes MUST always be able to send and receive fragment headers. (rest of
> the text deleted)
how about:
Nodes MUST always be able to send and receive fragment
headers. Note that even in the case where a sender does not
implement or use Path MTU discovery [RFC 1981], the sender
must still be prepared to send fragment headers, even for
packets that are smaller than the minimal IPv6 link MTU of
1280 octets. See Section 5 of [RFC 2460] for details.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
