Hi Lori,
Find my comments inline
Regards
Suresh
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Lori Napoli wrote:
>Thanks for your reply however I still think there is an issue with Path
>MTU. If I send a packet outbound, typically I use the MTU associated
>with the destination to which I am sending the packet. In t
On Apr 22, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Based on the above, my understanding is that your appeal has now been
resolved.
Thomas,
Thank you for organizing the con-call that enable us to make those
progress.
The steps you mentioned address fully my concerns and resolve my appeal.
I'm parti
Alain,
This note summarizes the outcome of a conference call regarding your
appeal to the INT ADs of the IPv6 WG's decision to advance
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. Attendees on the call
included the INT ADs (Margaret and myself), the IPv6 chairs (Brian and
Bob) as well as yourself.
Y
Roy Brabson/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 04/22/2004 09:46:15
AM:
> > > The only problematic case, as far as I can see, would be
ICMPv6 too
> > > big messages for path MTU discovery. In this case,
however, we can
> > > still update the MTU information gradually; we first update
the MTU
> > > information
> > The only problematic case, as far as I can
see, would be ICMPv6 too
> > big messages for path MTU discovery. In this case, however,
we can
> > still update the MTU information gradually; we first update the
MTU
> > information to the intermediate destination stored in the destination
> > addr
> The only problematic case, as far as I can see,
would be ICMPv6 too
> big messages for path MTU discovery. In this case, however,
we can
> still update the MTU information gradually; we first update the MTU
> information to the intermediate destination stored in the destination
> address field
