Le Tuesday 18 September 2007 23:43:30 Templin, Fred L, vous avez écrit : > Brian, > > After having discussed with others, please see attached > for a proposal that addresses the MTU issues for tunnels. > It also addresses the multi-mtu subnet issue, since it > does not rely on ICMP "packet too big" messages from the > last-hop router.
From a purely cosmetic standpoint, I think MRU (Max Receive Unit) is a lot more readable that EMTU_R. From a technical perspective, this strikes me as: - It requires knowledge of informations that is often hidden/not provided to the tunneling implementation, including path MTU and IP ID. That makes it possibly unimplementable without strong integration/dependency between the tunneling and the outer IPv4 stacks. - It requires maintaining quite a bit of extra state per neighbor. I have received complaints that Teredo relays are having scalability issues already now due to the growing numbers of clients, and adding more per-client state would make matters worse. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
