Agreed. Let's ask some "running code" people some input about the practical constraints.
/as On 6/12/13 6:21 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> So a limit of 128 would currently probably be ok, but I personally would >>> prefer the limit to be a bit higher just to have some extra margin. >> > >> > I think we should advocate 256 as a target for hardware designers; we know >> > that >> > some of them have current hardware limits less than that, but a "SHOULD >> > inspect 256" >> > seems reasonable (and conversely, a "SHOULD NOT exceed 256" for hosts >> > generating >> > IPv6 packets). >> > >> > Given time (as somebody said, maybe ten years) this would palliate the >> > problem. >> > >> > Brian > > Whilst I agree we need to take steps to simplify the problem, I'd like > some feedback from hardware manufacturers either publicly or privately > whether this limit is sufficient on its own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------