nanog mailing list archives
Re: NIST and SP800-119
From: Joe Abley <jabley () hopcount ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:09:37 -0500
On 2011-02-14, at 21:41, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, TR Shaw <tshaw () oitc com> wrote:Just wondering what this community thinks of NIST in general and their SP800-119 ( http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-119/sp800-119.pdf ) writeup about IPv6 in particular.Well, according to this document IPv4 path MTU discovery is, "optional, not widely used."
Optional seems right. Have there been any recent studies on how widely pMTUd is actually used in v4? More contentious is that Path MTU discovery is "strongly recommended" in IPv6. Surely it's mandatory whenever you're exchanging datagrams larger than 1280 octets? Otherwise the sender can't fragment. Joe
Current thread:
- NIST and SP800-119 TR Shaw (Feb 14)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 William Herrin (Feb 14)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Joe Abley (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 William Herrin (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Joe Abley (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Steven Bellovin (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Mohacsi Janos (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Mans Nilsson (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Joe Abley (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Jared Mauch (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 William Herrin (Feb 14)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Douglas Otis (Feb 15)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Joe Abley (Feb 16)
- Re: NIST and SP800-119 Douglas Otis (Feb 16)