On 30/07/2013 20:42, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > I mostly agree. Some fuzz. > > On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> I think that we heard the following at yesterday's meeting: >> >> Title >> ===== >> The document should be renamed "IPv6 Fragmentation Considered Ineffective" > > "Ineffective" has to be modified by "for some specific purpose". Is it > ineffective at getting packets through end to end? Ineffective at getting > through firewalls? What?
How about "IPv6 Fragmentation is Ineffective for End-to-end Transport"? (i.e. get rid of the cliché "considered" because we are documenting a fact). ... >> - The IETF SHOULD NOT standardize an new protocols that rely on IPv6 >> fragmentation >> ---*New* applications and transport layer protocols SHOULD support effective >> PLMTUD [RFC4821] since ICMP-based PMTUD [RFC1981] is unreliable >> --*New* applications or transport layer protocols that cannot support >> effective PMTUD MUST NOT in any circumstances send IPv6 packets that exceed >> the IPv6 minimum MTU of 1280 bytes. > > I'm a little concerned by this. I understand it, I think, but ... > > So, then the IETF should not standardize RTP or any protocol (voice, video, > ...) that uses it, because RTP relies on its application to manage frame > size, and we can't say specifically what the codec will do? s/RTP/UDP/? With the emphasis on "new", I'm not too concerned. We're saying: unless your packetization layer works properly, you lose. Is that so bad? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
