Subject: (IPng 7373) Reg:W.G. Last Call on "IPv6 Jumbograms"

From: "Raghu V.V.J Vadapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:24:16 -0800 (PST)

1.Do we need to mention that IPv6 path MTU discovery is a strict
requirementbefore using the IPv6 jumbo payload option in this draft.
                                 or
The IPv6 path MTU made strict requirement in the IPv6 implementation
itself.

2. Do we need include the following error: 
        IPv6 Payload Length !=0 and Fragment Header is present and
Jumbo Payload option present.

With Regards
-Raghu.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:58:39 -0600

> The IPv6 path MTU made strict requirement in the IPv6 implementation

RFC 2460, section 5, comes within a millimeter of saying that nodes
which send packets greater than 1280 octets MUST implement PMTUD, but
doesn't quite get there.

> Jumbo Payload option present.

The HBH options have to come before the fragment header (because they
must be seen without reassembly), so this is just a non-special case
of the second error case in section 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------