Re: MTU handling and 2461bis

Those interested should perhaps have a look at:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-01.txt

before responding to Hesham's question. I am seeing in that
document some language that may place the bar for acceptance
quite high indeed if we were to adopt Hesham's choice # 2.

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Soliman Hesham wrote:

>Folks, 
>
>I've been following this discussion and trying to understand
>where people want to solve it. I'm writing my personal
>conclusion here and please let me know if you disagree.
>
>First there is the question of: is this worth solving?
>and if it is, can it be entirely solved here or do we 
>need to involved IEEE? 
>
>There seems to be different opinions here. 
>
>Without getting into the technical issues, which are 
>discussed in detail, and assuming that people think it's
>worth solving, we have two choices in terms of 
>moving forward:
>
>1. Add the MTU negotiation between two nodes in 2461 bis
>2. Another spec can define those options
>
>The impression I'm getting is that people are in favour 
>of (2) above. I'm personally in favour of (2) as well.
>This work seems significant enough to have its own spec. 
>Also, it seems like it will take some time to work out
>the details of this optimisation and get concensus
>on the details. 
>
>So can we move forward based on this conclusion
>and not put this in 2461bis ?
>
>Thanks, 
>Hesham
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------