Subject: Re: "RFC 2461bis" issue: MTU handling

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:56:07 +0200

On 23 okt 2003, at 12:12, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Yes, and...?

> Even if you don't want a separate physical infrastructure, defining a 
> VLAN is trivial.

Yes, and setting up a new TCP session is even more trivial. But somehow 
people see the value of writing a 150 page specification to do 
mobility.

Six months NOC duty, graveyard shift.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:37:26 -0700

Pekka Savola wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>See http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/jumbo/ for some links 
>>surrounding this issue.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, and...?
>
>Even if you don't want a separate physical infrastructure, defining a VLAN
>is trivial.
>

Where the L2 supports that capability and operators know how to
configure it, perhaps. Everywhere else, we still have legacy L2
infrastructures to deal with.

>Really, I can't see all that many scenarios where you'd deploy multiple 
>nodes on a link with different MTU values and the internal traffic would 
>be so high that optimizing the MTU used between these would be worth 
>optimizing..
>

I have given two good examples.

Fred
[email-masked]