Hi, Bob,
AOK. Thanks,
Joe
On 5/5/2017 5:32 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
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.
I will add something, but this sentence follows:
If a node receives a Packet Too Big message reporting a next-hop
MTU that is less than the IPv6 minimum link MTU, it MUST discard it.
so I think the context was clear.
Bob
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