In your letter dated Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:01:46 -0300 you wrote: >In any, please note the difference between *accepting* atomic fragments, >generating ICMPv6 PTB when the MTU of the constricting link is < 1280, >and reacting to ICMPv6 PTB by generating atomic fragments.
My strong preference would be to kill this whole atomic fragment stuff before it goes any further. The sole purpose of atomic fragments seems to be to be able to copy a random number generated by the host instead of generating one locally in a gateway/translator. (I assume that any server, certainly bigger DNS servers, will have trouble maintaining destination cache entries long enough to ensure that there will be no collissions. Thus reducing id generation to just random) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
