Re: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Path MTU for Tunnels (was: RE: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt)
Hmm - I may have spoken too soon, as it looks like RFC 2675 has
some minimum packet sizing requirements that make it just a bit
too big to use over IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels. Maybe we should (bis) it?
Fred
P.S. The document can be trivially extended to support IPv6
Jumbograms - this will be added in the next version
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
