On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Tore Anderson <t...@fud.no> wrote: > * Fred Baker (fred) > >> On Jun 22, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Tore Anderson <t...@fud.no> wrote: >>> - When a SIIT translator receives an IPv4 packet with DF=0 that >>> would result in an IPv6 packet that would exceed the IPv6 link MTU, >>> it will split the original packet into IPv6 fragments. >> >> It *could* fragment the IPv4 packet and send it in two unfragmented >> IPv6 packets. > > Wouldn't doing IPv4 fragmentation before translation to IPv6 be > logically identical to this other case I mentioned?
Ah. You're correct. I was thinking about tunnels. >>> - When a SIIT translator receives an IPv4 fragment, it will translate >>> this into one or more IPv6 fragments. > > I can't see how simply omitting the Fragmentation header in the IPv6 > output could work here, as the node receiving those two unfragmented > IPv6 packets would see the first one containing a truncated L4 payload, > while the second one would be just garbage as it doesn't include a L4 > header. > > Tore ----------------------------------- "We are learning to do a great many clever things...The next great task will be to learn not to do them." - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
