Hi Mohacsi, LWAPP encapsulation, IPv6-in-IPv6 etc.
Thanks. Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:11 PM To: Vishwas Manral Cc: Pekka Savola; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: IPv6 and Tiny Fragments On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote: > 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. What further encapsulation are you referering to? If I would be a implementer and I would have to pass packets bigger than MTU. I would take as much content as I can into the first fragmented packet and so on until there is content left. I would use fragment at least minimum MTU (size >1280). > > Pekka, besides the RFC does not state how we treat M flag as 0 and > fragment Offset as 0? > Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98 > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
