nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smallest Transit MTU
From: Robert E.Seastrom <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:29:37 -0500
John Kristoff <jtk () northwestern edu> writes:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:51:01 -0500 "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com> wrote:You must not remember how SunOS 4 responded when handed icmp echo requests with the record-route option set (passed the packet on for the next guy to enjoy and then promptly paniced).[...] Now I know wide deployment of IPv6 is in jeopardy. If using 2 reserved bits in a TCP header causes this kind of fear, imagine the resistance IPv6 and it's redefinition of 20 bytes plus an addition of 20 has yet to see.
Don't be silly - an IPv4 stack that does not know about IPv6 will never see the packets, period, from the ethertype (86DD vs. 0800) right on up. The problem with wide deployment of v6 is strictly a chicken-or-egg problem. Super-limited-content -> super-limited eyeballs -> super-limited incentive to make more. ---Rob
Current thread:
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU, (continued)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Dan Hollis (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Dan Hollis (Dec 29)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU John Kristoff (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 31)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU Scott Weeks (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU Matthew Kaufman (Dec 30)
- RE: Smallest Transit MTU David Schwartz (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 30)
- Re: Smallest Transit MTU Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 31)