ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

2017-04-25 13:27:11
Hi, Stewart,


On 4/24/2017 10:12 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Minor issues:

 A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the Path MTU below the IPv6
 minimum link MTU.

SB> I missed this last time.
SB>
SB> Presumably you mean "A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the 
SB> Path MTU below the IPv6 minimum link MTU in response to such
SB> a message."
This seems fine to me, FWIW - i.e., limiting the advice in this doc to
the mechanism in  this doc.

SB> 
SB> Otherwise I would have thought that this was entirely a matter 
SB> for the host whether it wanted to use a Path MTU below the IPv6 
SB> link minimum. Nothing breaks if the host takes a more conservative
SB> decision.
I don't agree; the host at that point is violating RFC2460. It should
never think that an IPv6 link or path with an MTU below what RFC2460
requires is valid.

Joe