On 25/06/2013, at 8:17 PM, Glen Turner <g...@gdt.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Bob Hinden wrote: >> I think it would be good to fix this even if we don't deprecate IPv6 >> fragmentation. > > What's this look like on the API side? You pass in a packet. Does the > socket block because there may a packet in parallel (and how does > the mechanism under the API know that)? Is that better or worse > than fragmentation? > > I think that FreeBSD has done the reasonable thing. Given that the API > has accepted the packet it is transmitting it using the most recent > information about the path, rather than transmitting it with high > odds of failure.
I also believe that FreeBSD has done the best it can, and reasonably so. It is debatable whether a ICMP6 PTB message should apply to all currently open TCP sessions to the same destination, as I wonder about multi-path TCP and path diversity here. Geoff -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
