nanog mailing list archives
Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:58:02 +0100
On 10 feb 2011, at 0:26, David Freedman wrote:
Unless every packet you emit is ≤ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered backbone interface which may solicit a TOOBIG that I'll have to care about?
What if you're trying to connect to your routers with 1500-byte+ POS, ATM, ethernet jumbo or what have you interfaces from some system with a big fat jumboframe MTU but some 100 Mbps ethernet firewall or office network in the middle? If you're willing to accept TCP or UDP from somewhere, it's a bad idea to filter ICMP coming in from that same place.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Mohacsi Janos (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network sthaug (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Sam Stickland (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network sthaug (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)