* Tore Anderson: > * Florian Weimer > >>> And I see no functional difference between the gateway and the host >>> generating the fragment ID, except that the latter approach seems to >>> require network-wide software updates currently. > > A stateless translator does not keep track of the PMTU for the IPv4 > destinations. That means that for it to work, it would have to clear the > Don't Fragment flag and generate a Fragment ID for every single packet > it translates to IPv4 that ends up smaller than 1260 bytes. I don't > believe this is desirable.
Why? You should generate the fragment ID anyway because some networks will fragment DF=1 packets. > Also, RFC 2460 would have to be amended in order to allow hosts to > outright ignore ICMPv6 PTB w/MTU<1280, and the IPv6 host stacks would > also have to be updated accordingly. It seems to me, therefore, that the > approach of having the translator generate the Fragment ID is the one > that requires the most network-wide software updates. Affected translators are in the minority. Their vendors will implement the change (i.e., fragment IPv6 packets without fragment headers) because that's what's required to get them working with the currrent network. -- Florian Weimer <fwei...@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
