[137516] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST and SP800-119
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Feb 15 10:10:35 2011
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZLzQn+7bpp_SzvfcV1SSNE2+rzanvVDOB0ZP3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:09:37 -0500
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
>=20
> 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=
