On 01/04/2012 05:55, RJ Atkinson wrote: > Earlier, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 01/03/2012 11:02, Dan Wing wrote: >>> 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 this is not a feature because? And no, don't quote the >> robustness principle. The floor for MTU has been hard-coded since day 1, >> so anyone who breaks that deserves what they get. > > In fact, the MTU floor CHANGED from 576 to 1280 well AFTER day 1,
Technically you're correct of course, but for all practical values of "day 1" I think my point remains valid. > Separately, I'm old enough to believe in the robustness > principle -- because Jon Postel's argument for it was > (and remains) quite correct. In the abstract, sure. But to what extent does that argument apply to people who made a best effort at following the spec and didn't get it done exactly the way that you did; and to what extent does it apply to people who say "Screw the spec, I'm gonna do it this way, you sort it out." Doug -- You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------