Re: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Sat, 14 July 2012 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 F129121F86A1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sYFTRqN3nTYU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CAE21F85F9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <ipv6@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:39:24 -0600
Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.138) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:38:31 -0600
Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19EC3E4004F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:38:30 +0000 (WET)
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q6EBcU8u161896 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:38:30 -0600
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q6EBcUD1027134 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:38:30 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-251-106.mts.ibm.com [9.65.251.106]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q6EBcTsL027119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:38:30 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q6EBcS6V014019; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:38:29 -0400
Message-Id: <201207141138.q6EBcS6V014019@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: RFC2460 violation of RFC1122
In-reply-to: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D8F4C8D63@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>
Comments: In-reply-to "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> message dated "Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:25:37 -0700."
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:38:28 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12071411-5518-0000-0000-00000608917C
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: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:38:48 -0000

> 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.

Thomas