On 07/30/2013 08:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > hmmm. i am gonna put my foot in the cow pie. > i think what we want here is something close to > o future implementations SHOULD not generate frags > (note that SHOULD != MUST) > o expect to receive frags for a long time
My understanding was that the goal was: * New applications should avoid fragmentation where possible * Hosts must still be able to fragment and reassemble * Beware that some networks filter fragments i.e., we're not arguing about removing any functionality from nodes (whether current or new implementations), nor we're advising networks to drop fragments. -- i.e., something along the lines of what we did in RFC 6093 for the TCP urgent mechanism. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
