nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...)
From: Antony <antony () phenome org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:01:12 +0200
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:04:36PM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
At 11:37 23/08/01, Antony Antony wrote:for those who interested in IPv6, Path MTU Discovery is not in IPv6 stack. To have end to end jumbo frames in native v6 we NAPs in the path should support jumbo frames.More precisely, with IPv6 networks, either:
Sorry. I ment to say routers don't perform fragmentation of packets they're forwarding. If a packet is to be forwarded onto a link whose link MTU is less than the size of the packet, the node must discard the packet and send an ICMP Packet Too Big message to the packet's Source Address. ICMP error message also contains MTU of the link. Host can retransmit with size obtained from the ICMP message. To have jumbo frames in IPv6 from end to end and path is via NAP, NAPs should support it. Or am I still mistaken ?
[Source: RFC-2460, Section 5, Page 24]
Same RFC section 4.4 and 4.5 -antony
Current thread:
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...), (continued)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 22)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) John Kristoff (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Miquel van Smoorenburg (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Antony (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) Greg Maxwell (Aug 23)
- Re: Ethernet NAPs (was Re: Miami ...) RJ Atkinson (Aug 23)