Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:18:41 +0000

Jen,

This is a good idea. I will add it to the next draft version.

                                                  Ron

> recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would be
> beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented packets
> to/from operator's DNS servers.
> I apologia if it's been discussed before and rejected (I did not find such
> discussion on the list).
> 
**********************************

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:36:12 -0800

Ron,

Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including
some simple text recommending that network operators SHOULD take
efforts to make sure the MTU(s) on their network(s) are "fit for
purpose", i.e. sized to avoid fragmentation to the extent possible.

I'm not sure yet how to better express that notion.  It seems obvious
and anodyne, but it can be useful to have these things captured for
reference by non-IETF documents.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 09:18, Ron Bonica <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:53 -0800

The problem is that the MTU of an IPv6 overlay is defined as 1280 and
cannot be reduced "to make it work". Nor can the MTU of the underlying
IPv6 be increased to help. 

Joe