Re: [v6ops] Minimum MTU size
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Tue, 31 January 2012 10:18 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BCD21F859E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 8FDOg0vfudr9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE48721F8535 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0VAHxWd053879; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:17:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201201311017.q0VAHxWd053879@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Dragos Ilie <dragos.ilie@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:50:25 +0100. <CAOLNa-fXX9+qY8Sw-r9WTq6y7wSxNS-XZCfrGXZHmA731x1i9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:17:59 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Minimum MTU size
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:18:02 -0000
In your previous mail you wrote: > I am trying to find out the underlaying reason to select a 1280 bytes > minimum MTU for IPv6 (as opposed to any other value such as 1400 or > 1500 bytes). For example, I heard that the reason for selecting a > 576-bytes min MTU for IPv4 has to do with packet sizes for DNS and > X.25. I would appreciated it if somebody can explain the motivation > for the 1280-byte choice in the case of IPv6 or point me to relevant > information sources. => first the min MTU for IPv4 is 68 bytes (maximum sized header + 8), not 576 which is the minimum size for the reassembly (1500 for IPv6). The choice of 1280 was for 1024 of data (aka application payload) and 256 for headers. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
- [v6ops] Minimum MTU size Dragos Ilie
- Re: [v6ops] Minimum MTU size Francis Dupont
- Re: [v6ops] Minimum MTU size Dragos Ilie
- Re: [v6ops] Minimum MTU size Brian E Carpenter