Re: MTU handling and 2461bis

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Those interested should perhaps have a look at:

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-01.txt

before responding to Hesham's question. I am seeing in that
document some language that may place the bar for acceptance
quite high indeed if we were to adopt Hesham's choice # 2.

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Soliman Hesham wrote:

> Folks, 
> I've been following this discussion and trying to understand
> where people want to solve it. I'm writing my personal
> conclusion here and please let me know if you disagree.
>
> First there is the question of: is this worth solving?
> and if it is, can it be entirely solved here or do we 
> need to involved IEEE? 
> There seems to be different opinions here. 
> Without getting into the technical issues, which are 
> discussed in detail, and assuming that people think it's
> worth solving, we have two choices in terms of 
> moving forward:
>
> 1. Add the MTU negotiation between two nodes in 2461 bis
> 2. Another spec can define those options
>
> The impression I'm getting is that people are in favour 
> of (2) above. I'm personally in favour of (2) as well.
> This work seems significant enough to have its own spec. 
> Also, it seems like it will take some time to work out
> the details of this optimisation and get concensus
> on the details. 
> So can we move forward based on this conclusion
> and not put this in 2461bis ?
>
> Thanks, 
> Hesham
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------