IPv6 MTUs smaller than 1280 bytes?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 05:51:22AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:49:19AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > 	i will admit to truting what my tools tell me, and 
> > > 	they report an MTU of 1220.  It appears to be from a
> > > 	single vendors kit.
> > 
> > Is that due to a broken implementation, or due to actual link-layer
> > technology that cannot handle more than 1220?
> 
> 	are these two different?

Yes.  Broken implementations can be fixed or replaced by a different
vendor's working implementation.

Technology that cannot do larger MTUs because of the way the technology
is specified (imagine ATM without SAR at the VC endpoints) cannot be 
fixed without changing standards, upgrading lots of different vendor
implementations, etc.

Just to spell out why I think there is a difference :-) - in the specific
moment in time "I want to transfer a packet now and it does not go through",
there is no effective difference, of course.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  155817

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100912/7f64470d/attachment.bin