Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:15 AM > To: Soliman, Hesham > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Link MTU restriction in 2461 > > > Soliman, Hesham wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The following comment was received from Elwyn Davies: > > > > S6.3.4: (next to last para on p49): The restriction in > setting the LinkMTU to be not greater than the > default value specified in the link type specific document > is odd and actually inconsistent with the statements in > RFC2590 for example (which allows LinkMTUs both larger and > smaller than the default). > > > > I'm not sure about the history of this so I wanted to get some > > feedback from the authors or other members if possible. It is > > true that RFC 2590 allows for MTUs to be larger or smaller > > than the default, provided that they're above 1280. > > I think this is an error in RFC 2461. To correct it there is > perhaps a > need to make the destinction between the default MTU and the upper > limit. In the case of Ethernet (ignoring jumboframes) both > values are > the same which is why the wording is off. > > So if the IP-over-foo specification has a hard upper limit, then MTU > options larger than this should be ignored. But is it ok for the MTU > option to be larger than the default MTU. > > Erik >
=========================================================== This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. =========================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
