RE: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 16 July 2012 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C0B11E80D9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cqHb-NPrHSLX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A9211E80D2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q6GFvuOq028517 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:56 -0700
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.228.54]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q6GFvuTQ028508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:56 -0700
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q6GFvqba015689; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:57:52 -0500
Received: from XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-04.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.64.250]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q6GFvpWv015642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:57:52 -0500
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.250]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:51 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:57:49 -0700
Subject: RE: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122
Thread-Topic: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122
Thread-Index: Ac1htT53FcuhhOMyQuCkR5jAsG+qJQBtb3fA
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D8F4C910C@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4FFD71D7.4070209@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6BF582@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4FFF29E2.6090909@viagenie.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120712152812.082ba6f8@resistor.net> <50001613.2090203@viagenie.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120713085321.095aaf60@resistor.net> <50004916.4000206@viagenie.ca> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D8F4C8D63@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <201207141138.q6EBcS6V014019@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201207141138.q6EBcS6V014019@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:57:09 -0000

Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:38 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122
> 
> > By assuming an EMTU_R of greater than 576 bytes, RFC2460
> > is therefore in violation of RFC1122, which could lead to
> > communication failures. How do we reconcile this?
> 
> How many TCP/IP stacks exist today that cannot connect to an Ethernet,
> and thus, handle 1500 byte datagrams?
> 
> I suspsect that platforms limited to accepting IP datagrams of max
> size 576 are gettign to be an extreme edge case these days.

Others might disagree, but I don't mind assuming 1500.
But then, the size 1280 is in no way significant to IPv4
hosts so why stop there? Why not go all the way and say
that IPv4 hosts are expected to reassemble at least 1500
the same as for IPv6 hosts?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  
 
> Thomas