...
> > and the current IPv6 specification also allows PTB < 1280,
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-5 says:
> >
> >    In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination
> >    (i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the
> >    originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message
> >    reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280.  In that case, the IPv6
> node
> >    is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less
> than
> >    1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets so that
> the
> >    IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router can obtain a suitable
> Identification
> >    value to use in resulting IPv4 fragments.  Note that this means
> the
> >    payload may have to be reduced to 1232 octets (1280 minus 40 for
> the
> >    IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment header), and smaller still if
> >    additional extension headers are used.
> 
> Exactly. And my question was about whether the "atomic fragments" that
> were found in the wild were the result of translators, or of IPv6
> networks that "violate" the standard and do not support an MTU of >=
> 1280.

Dunno.

I am only trying to point out that IPv6 hosts need to handle receiving
ICMP packet-too-big of less than 1280, because we are going to see 
more stateless IPv6/IPv4 translators.  If IPv6 hosts don't handle
ICMP packet-too-big of less than 1280, those IPv4/IPv6 translators 
won't work with sub-1280 MTU IPv4 paths.

And Ran has pointed out other deployments where sub-1280 MTUs are
being used on IPv6.  (An aside comment:  I wonder if those networks 
can use LFI (link fragmentation and interleaving), which allows 
preserving the layer 3 MTU and should also provide the smaller
packets needed by the layer 1 or 2 network).

So, I don't think we can just wish away packet-too-big < 1280.

-d


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to