[v6ops] Minimum MTU size
Dragos Ilie <dragos.ilie@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 09:50 UTC
Return-Path: <dragos.ilie@gmail.com>
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 4435A21F8737 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 IGs9A471CcwJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C6D21F852B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so3788301vbb.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JH8lvZ/CrFWL3fgfoSvO0/YoFI0Xyg9tV8FC02H5Z/A=; b=oHF4ctCuNRNf3xQ4lNW8QAN1AcUregffLhBqd8lc2xC1s+bWCdKEltuE58+Tbdrv0y 1OZOJWxV1MU7zxonmVImsUJC6vnUpUPNVOHgzXa8h4GZpOwJ0NRplw30b9FP69KSkGmV KAuwPgw7x5sl16GenqhvQBTPeYImEiymyxjgE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.30.81 with SMTP id q17mr9727223vdh.115.1328003425203; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.21.244 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:50:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOLNa-fXX9+qY8Sw-r9WTq6y7wSxNS-XZCfrGXZHmA731x1i9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dragos Ilie <dragos.ilie@gmail.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [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 09:51:42 -0000
Hello! 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. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for asking this question. Sincerely, Dragos
- [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