[153950] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Jun 19 09:13:17 2012
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:10:19 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D37582E3D@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Not necessarily, as IPv4 can take care of itself and IPv6
>> is hopeless.
>
> IPv4 can take care of it how - with broken PMTUD or
As you know, RFC1191 style PMTUD is broken both for IPv4
and IPv6.
> with broken fragmentation/reassembly?
Fragmentation is fine, especially with RFC4821 style PMTUD,
even though RFC4821 tries to make people believe it is broken,
because accidental ID match is negligibly rare even with IPv4.
> And, you won't
> get any argument from me that IPv6 has been stuck
> for years for good reasons - but MTU failures can
> soon be taken off the list.
Now, it's time for you to return v6-ops to defend your
draft from Joe Touch.
Note that there is no point for IPv6 forbid fragmentation
by intermediate routers.
Masataka Ohta
