Stig Venaas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:53:37AM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Janos,
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?
Yes, I believe that is the minimum link MTU. So, obviously one fragment
might be smaller. I haven't seen anything say which fragment (reasonable
that it is the last, but haven't seen anything saying it must be), and
nothing prohibiting leaving several fragments smaller.
>
Also, there is sadly nothing saying overlapping fragments are not
allowed.
I suppose people writing code are assumed to exercise common sense,
e.g. make the first fragment as large as possible and don't overlap
fragments. But neither is required to make reassembly work. (Nor
is in-order reception of fragments required.)
It isn't a requirement in the Internet that intermediate systems can
see the transport header, so none of this seems to me to be a bug
in RFC 2460. The Unfragmentable Part definition there seems correct
to me.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
