nanog mailing list archives
Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:42:48 -0500
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:15:52 GMT, David Freedman said:
these people are doing this by design, I think thats the point I'm trying to get across, if you will never need to process TOOBIG in your design, there is no need to accept it.
And how many networks break PMTUD because their design says they never need to deal with ICMP so there's no need to accept it, or break DNS because TCP/53 is only used for zone transfers that should never happen, or...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Sam Stickland (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network sthaug (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)