Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

[[e-mail]]

Lars,

>> My apologies: my comments were probably misleading. Certainly, this
>> document is simply RFC1981 to Std, and hence recommending RFC4821 would
>> be kind of ou of scope, here.
>> 
>> That say, one might wonder to what extent, and for the general Internet,
>> RFC1981 can be considered succesful (given the filtering of ICMP
>> messages). -- i.e., at this point in time you wouldn't rely on RFC1981
>> (icmp-based pmtud) for path-mtu discovery.
> 
> What Fernando said: I'm certainly not opposed to lifting this to Standard, but it is painting an incorrect picture - PLPMTUD is de facto mandatory these days, and has been for years.

While I'm all in favour of PLMTUD. It doesn't seem like a complete solution.
PMTUD on the other hand supports all protocols on top of IP.

Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example.

O.