On 2/8/2016 1:27 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 2/8/2016 12:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Seems to me that we might be misreading the original proposal. There
are two ways to read it:
1) In future all Internet routing gear MUST NOT fragment IP packets.
IPv6 is that future, FWIW.
Hopefully yes.
But is it written down anywhere that IPv6 routers MUST accept packets
up to the full IP payload? The conversation in this thread suggests
not.
RFC2460 specifies both relaying and source/sink requirements.
One of the tricks the WiFi folk use to keep people upgrading is to add
a little suffix to the protocol. So folk started to look for
802.11a/c/n/an.
As a marketing matter, an IPv6f profile (f for FAST) might help grease
the skids a bit.
If "f" = flawed, sure.
Joe