Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

[Washam Fan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lorenzo,

2011/10/22 Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:48, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Indicating different MTUs to the host could go a long way towards
>> solving the issue that James brought up -- we need a clean way to
>> indicate to the host which routes or paths have small MTUs, so
>> that communications within a network can use a large MTU.
>
> Agreed. We should to make MTU a per-path, not per-link, attribute. After
> all, the host already knows from layer 2 hints what the local link MTU is.
> The good news is that we wouldn't need to change any packet formats to do
> that, we could simply make it so that the MTU in the RA would apply to the
> default route.

>From my experience, MTU in the RA is the MTU of the link to which the
advertising interface of the router attaches. I.e., the PMTU for the
host-to-host communication within the link. For host-to-host
communication beyond the link, either PMTU mechanism should be
employed or 1280 is used.

Thanks,
washam