IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 07 February 2017 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08569129E12; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:13:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1CqfhwdCEpc; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A4091295BC; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.104] ([128.9.184.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v17JCxBq003843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
References: <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <01c901d27ee6$754994a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20170204223848.GL10525@verdi>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <fdc025ec-bb9c-3e41-58e1-0609f46abbb9@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:13:00 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170204223848.GL10525@verdi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V-u5_P9bTygDvaOv9RJ9SFeke4o>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Stefano Previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:13:36 -0000


On 2/4/2017 2:38 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>    (One particularly silly flaw is that we allow _most_ nodes to
> have a hard limit of 1500 bytes per packet: requiring IPv6 nodes to
> handle packets ten times that limit would help a lot!)

Given we have no way to signal that an *endpoint* can do better, what's
the point?

Joe

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email