[76826] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Smallest Transit MTU
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E.Seastrom)
Fri Dec 31 08:30:08 2004
To: John Kristoff <jtk@northwestern.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Robert E.Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:29:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20041231013910.323c920f@dsl017-022-068.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net> (John
Kristoff's message of "Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:39:10 -0600")
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
John Kristoff <jtk@northwestern.edu> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:51:01 -0500
> "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
>
>> You must not remember how SunOS 4 responded when handed icmp echo
>> requests with the record-route option set (passed the packet on for
>> the next guy to enjoy and then promptly paniced).
> [...]
>
> Now I know wide deployment of IPv6 is in jeopardy. If using 2 reserved
> bits in a TCP header causes this kind of fear, imagine the resistance
> IPv6 and it's redefinition of 20 bytes plus an addition of 20 has yet to
> see.
Don't be silly - an IPv4 stack that does not know about IPv6 will
never see the packets, period, from the ethertype (86DD vs. 0800)
right on up.
The problem with wide deployment of v6 is strictly a chicken-or-egg
problem. Super-limited-content -> super-limited eyeballs ->
super-limited incentive to make more.
---Rob
