IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC 2464 - MTU >1500

Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> Mon, 07 February 2011 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dr@cluenet.de>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33253A6EDE for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:18:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 K5VZM5XphYet for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.cluenet.de (mail1.cluenet.de [IPv6:2001:1440:201:101::5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144EA3A6EBA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail1.cluenet.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id A68CF1080D8; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:18:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:18:26 +0100
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110207211826.GB13323@srv03.cluenet.de>
Mail-Followup-To: v6ops@ietf.org, Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
References: <20110203224351.GA27225@srv03.cluenet.de> <AANLkTikz2mapjyZ0+mvmn12+j3x4X9hzd3sm0+V=VZtP@mail.gmail.com> <201102041342.p14DgnOV017566@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201102041342.p14DgnOV017566@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Cc: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC 2464 - MTU >1500
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:18:23 -0000

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:42:49AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> The MTU option in an RA can be used to override the default, in cases
> where the default value is somehow not optimal.

Except that the IPoverEthernet RFC says to ignore MTU >1500 when received
in RAs. So on Ethernet, RA MTU option may only decrease MTU, not increase
compared to default.

The reasoning behind that is beyond me.

Looking at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipngwg-trans-ethernet/history/,
that paragraph was never substantially changed in the I-D process, just
the paragraph referring to DHCP="manual" added.

Matt, any chance of clarification?


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email