Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: IPv6 hosts sending <1280 byte packets

El 08/02/10 17:21, Dan Wing escribió:
>
> But no matter the reason, I agree that a greater than 50% failure on the
> Internet means the function is effectively broken.  In my view, Ben's testing
> invalidates the consensus reached in the meeting at IETF76 (Hiroshima),and I
>    
> have asked authors of xlate and xlate-stateful to revise the documents
> accordingly.
>
>    

I am not sure what the translator should do now... what do you have in mind?

Regards, marcelo

> If anyone thinks we should keep the IETF76 consensus, please speak up now!
>
> -d
>
>
>    
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>      
>>> From: Ben Stasiewicz<ben@wand.net.nz>
>>> Date: 7 februari 2010 19:39:08 GMT+01:00
>>> To: mtu@psc.edu
>>> Cc: Matthew Luckie<mjl@wand.net.nz>
>>> Subject: Re: IPv6 hosts sending<1280 byte packets [was RE:
>>>        
>> RRG discussion of SEAL, IPTM - and my critique of RFC4821]
>>
>>      
>>> On 29/01/10 08:40, Dan Wing wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Ben, would it be possible to conduct a test to see how
>>>>          
>> hosts react to PTB
>>      
>>>> smaller than 1280?
>>>>          
>>      
>>> I conducted such a test and found that 299 (43.46%) of the 688
>>> IPv6-capable web servers that I tested did include an IPv6
>>>        
>> fragmentation
>>      
>>> header in their response packets after they were sent an ICMPv6 PTB
>>> message specifying an MTU<  1280 bytes. The other 389
>>>        
>> (56.54%) did not.
>>
>>      
>>> I am happy to answer any questions about the test.
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> Behave@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>    