On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
On 09/23/2013 12:57 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:
There are two issues that Warren's comments brought to the fore:
1.) One of the reasons why operators block fragments is that if
fragments are allowed into one's
Hi Mike,
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
C. M. Heard
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:08 PM
To: IPv6
Subject: Re: [6MAN] UDP+Fragmentation (was: Deprecate)
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Warren Kumari wrote:
Apologies if I missed
On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:37 AM, C. M. Heard he...@pobox.com wrote:
Greetings,
Upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal in
draft-andrews-6man-fragopt (or a variant thereof) is a much better
solution to the problems with IPv6 fragmentation than the UDP
segmentation
Warren can you please fix your MUA to generate legal To: lines.
To: C. M. Heard he...@pobox.com is not legal a legal To: line.
repl: bad addresses:
C. M. Heard he...@pobox.com -- no at-sign after local-part ()
In message 58a2cce5-4eab-4d80-8a97-5f0e2...@kumari.net, Warren Kumari wri
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Warren Kumari wrote:
Apologies if I missed it and this was already discussed -- for
some reason my MUA is refusing to thread this conversation
correctly and so I'm reading thing all out of order?
Ah, an operations person joining the discussion! Thank you!
I have some
