In your letter dated Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:42:27 -0300 you wrote: >On 01/30/2012 06:28 PM, Philip Homburg wrote: >> In your letter dated Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:41:18 -0300 you wrote: >>> That said, nobody is *introducing* atomic fragments.They should have >>> been supported for more than 15 years, and there is other stuff >>> (mentioned by Dan Wing at others) that would break without this. >> >> Currently, atomic fragments are rare. >> >[...] >> >> I'm not seeing that on todays IPv6 network. So that would be completely >> new. > >See this:
Let's say that my thesis is that all atomic fragments are directly or indirectly caused by the support for stateless NAT in RFC-2460. Then what do we get: >https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42572 "An IPv4 client behind a link with a MTU of 1259 downloading a file from an IPv6 server" So yes. >https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42595 "If the allfrag feature has been set on a host route (due to an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big received indicating a MTU of less than 1280)" Again yes. >And this: > >http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipv6/22728 "Such traffic absolutely occurs in the wild. I have three reasonably busy name servers where this is logged as an error from the ipfw code, e.g." Inconclusive. We don't know why that traffic is there. So, just remove that requirement from RFC-2460, and the problem is gone. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
