On 25/06/2013 10:11, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> "New IPv6 host implementations MAY support IPv6 fragmentation and >> reassembly" >> break things. "New IPv6 host implementations MAY support IPv6 >> fragmentation but MUST support reassembly" may superior. This will >> aging out fragmentation over a longer period, new hosts will not use it >> but existing - applications will not break. > > I could live with this. Would it satisfy other folks' objections?
I think it's far too soon in developing the analysis to be able to answer that question. This isn't cooked yet. > >> "Network operators MAY filter IPv6 fragments." is a policy thing and >> costumers have to deal with that already. So it is ok from my point of >> view. > > Ack. It is a statement of fact, not an IETF imposed requirement. If it's a statement of fact, it shouldn't use RFC 2119 language. It should simply state the truth: "Network operators might filter IPv6 fragments." Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
