Minimum IPv6 MTU
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 10 July 2008 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7ED3A6A8B; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AE03A6A77 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJ-6WxZ0shXX for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86083A6A8B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1DD6B6773 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:31 -0300 (ART)
Received: from notebook.gont.com.ar (201-254-44-105.speedy.com.ar [201.254.44.105] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6AKYGnc004166 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:17 -0300
Message-Id: <200807102034.m6AKYGnc004166@venus.xmundo.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:30:22 -0300
To: ipv6@ietf.org
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Minimum IPv6 MTU
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:30 -0300 (ART)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Folks, RFC 2460 states that every link in an internet have an MTU of 1280 octets or greater, and that any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet packet in one piece must provide fragmentation and reassembly at a layer bellow IPv6. However, while talking about the specs with a few folks (who preferred to remain anonymous), it was mentioned to me that in a number of scenarios (not necessarily those that involve tunnels), some links have an MTU smaller than 1280, and they do not perform the "fragmentation and reassembly function at a layer bellow IP" that RFC 2460 requires. Any operational data or experiences with those link technologies will be more than welcome.... either on- or off-list. Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Minimum IPv6 MTU Fernando Gont
- Re: Minimum IPv6 MTU Jeroen Massar