On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very well-written then - a
> machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.
That's a BSD bug, not a standard bug.
The IPv6 specification says host must proc
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:39:26 +0530, vijay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am interested in knowing if the path MTU is a problem in real networks
Yes it is. Some people have a 1492 MTU due to PPP encapsulation; some have
9000+ such a gigabit links. And in IPv6 case, 1480 (and 1472) are fairly
commo
r the
whole entity/network. It should never (or only on very special occasions)
have to change. ULA would be very impractical if these were changing; in
particular, storing addresses in DNS would be quite difficult.
--
Remi Denis-Courmont
http://www.sim
is not going to get a /48. Products need to handle
> this and they might as well handle the general case.
Yep.
--
Remi Denis-Courmont
http://www.simphalempin.com/home/
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
A
use a bunch of fragmentation headaches on the NAT box to
insert the IP option.
--
Remi Denis-Courmont
http://www.simphalempin.com/home/
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
