[139310] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Fri Apr 1 23:19:39 2011
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:19:20 +0200
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=xNO4wh75tnOnW+-VK1Ujhyiwu3fURRrm63nX3@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Isn't that what the uvula is for?
Oh... never mind.... wrong swallow. ;)
On 4/2/11 3:34 AM, Chad Dailey wrote:
> Swallows have MTU issues.
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So
>> if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or
>> tunneling?
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
>>>>
>>> I was disappointed in this RFC -- Section 3.1 didn't include the proper
>> discussion of the difference between African and European avian carriers,
>> and we know what happens if that question is asked at the wrong time.
>>>
>>> --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I
>> think in general, swallows
>> provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
>>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
