Hi pekka, I need some clarification on this: 3.2. Tunnel MTU and Fragmentation
Naively the encapsulator could view encapsulation as IPv6 using IPv4 as a link layer with a very large MTU (65535-20 bytes to be exact; 20 bytes "extra" are needed for the encapsulating IPv4 header --> Why do we mention 65535-20 bytes "exact"? Isnt it syntactically wrong? i feel it can be rephrased as : " as a link layer with a very large MTU (65535-20 bytes atmost; minimum of 20 bytes "extra" are needed for the encapsulating IPv4 header without options) Regards Radhakrishnan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Alex Conta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:33 PM Subject: RE: mech-v2-05pre > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote: > > Wrt the definition of the point-to-point link concept for IPv6 - then > > RFC 2461, Section 2.2, states: > > > > "point-to-point - a link that connects exactly two interfaces. A > > point-to-point link is assumed to have multicast > > capability and have a link-local address." > > > > When using the term "point-to-point links" in section 3.8 of mech-v2, > > I have always assumed the above definition to be the one referred to - ? > > Yes, that's how sect 3.8 uses Neighbor Discovery. I don't see a > conflict. The goal of that definition is to define point-to-point for > higher layers. We want to give a clear statement on what the > point-to-point is from the perspective of the lower layers. > > The quote says p2p connects two interfaces. That's OK, but that > refers (in this case) to the logical IPv6 tunnel interfaces, not the > physical underlying interfaces which are not necessarily even > IPv6-capable. > > What we want to say is that the v6 link is a virtual point-to-point as > defined in above, and the lower layer endpoints of that p2p link are > the v4 addresses which are configured on the endpoint nodes' physical > interfaces. [and specifically, the lower layer endpoints aren't just > any addresses on the endpoint nodes, rather the specific v4 addresses] > > But that seems way too confusing way to put it, so just saying > "virtual p2p between v4 addresses" seems shorter and sufficiently > clear. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
