Lori Napoli wrote:
>
> 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 up
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
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
