Subject: RE: RFC 2529 (6over4)

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:01:11 -0700

> Does it need to give guidance on the use of PMTU, both at v4 
> and v6 levels?
> Or just be silent.

It only gets complicated if the v4 PMTU discovery is going to affect the v6
MTU. I think you can say that as a warning to implementors, but I think it's
too tricky for you to give much additional guidance.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:35:29 -0500

The co-authors of 2529 propose that whenever the document
is revised, we change to saying that the encapsulator
SHOULD NOT set DF, and that for now implementors proceed
on that basis.

Thanks again to Sowmini for the detailed review that sparked
this conversation. We probably want to wait for more
interoperability experience before actually revising the
RFC.

   Brian + Cyndi

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT)

> SHOULD NOT set DF, and that for now implementors proceed

as long as you add "MUST NOT set DF when the IPv4 packet is a multicast
packet."

I think I raised the multicast issue at a meeting which generated 
the MUST NOT.

  Erik