Hi Pekka, That sounds good. We seem to be coming from different direction but to the same thing.
I however would prefer to be closer to 800, to allow more levels of encapsulation, especially the first header. I do not agree with Mohacsi because the 1280 limit will not allow further encapsulations, without fragmentation. Pekka, besides the RFC does not state how we treat M flag as 0 and fragment Offset as 0? Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 3:12 PM To: Vishwas Manral Cc: Mohacsi Janos; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: IPv6 and Tiny Fragments Hi, On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote: > I think that is the minimum Link MTU and not the smallest size non-last > fragment. > > Can you point me to the RFC/ draft which says what you stated? This is a good point. Let me copy a part of Elwyn Davies's message on the list on September: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:14:26 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Taking RFC2460 (base IPv6) spec to full standard - issues outstanding .... [outstanding issues in core IPv6 spec before moving to full standard] ? Fragment reassembly algorithm - should explicitly forbid overlapped fragments and possibly require that non-final fragments are (say) at least 1024 bytes. The minimum IPv6 fragment size is not specified AFAICT. -- 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 ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
