nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 day and tunnels
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin () boeing com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:00:41 -0700
A few more words on MTU. What we are after is accommodation of MTU diversity - not any one specific size. Practical limit is (2^32 - 1) for IPv6, but we expect smaller sizes for the near term. Operators know how to configure MTUs appropriate for their links. 1280 is too small, and turns the IPv6 Internet into ATM. In order to support MTU diversity, PMTUD must be made to work. This means working to eliminate all network blockage of ICMPv6 PTBs, while at the same time provisioning hosts and tunnels with mechanisms that work even if no PTBs are delivered. For hosts, that requires RFC4821. For tunnels, that requires fragmentation.
From an earlier message:
9000B may still be acceptable.
True, but what we need is not any one fixed Internet "cell size" but rather full support for MTU diversity. Fred fred.l.templin () boeing com
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 05)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Mark Andrews (Jun 05)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jimmy Hess (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jimmy Hess (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels valdis . kletnieks (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Joe Maimon (Jun 06)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Joe Maimon (Jun 04)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Masataka Ohta (Jun 04)