Note: the author probably intended to send this on v6ops list. The discussion is continued there.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
