option 212 for 6RD
ipepelnjak at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 11:05:39 CET 2013
Could we all agree that (A) jumbo frames, (B) multiple routers per subnet and (C) all other concoctions like bridged domains with mismatched MTU are out of scope of the original topic?
The original question was "how do I deploy residential CPE with 6rd with minimum support costs" ... and let's add "for 99.9% of my users" to the question to avoid geeks jumping in claiming they need (your-favorite-feature) supported by $99 CPE. Do we all agree reduced MTU on LAN side advertised in RA messages is the best solution given current state of reality?
Everything else discussed in the last few days (although intellectually interesting) is just another illustration of how immature a certain protocol is ;) Go write an IETF draft to fix it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+ipepelnjak=gmail.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-
> ops-bounces+ipepelnjak=gmail.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 10:54 AM
> To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: option 212 for 6RD
> Hi Tassos,
> [please send plain-text, not just HTML - thanks!]
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:42:21AM +0200, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
> > Imho, this (use of RA MTU) is the easiest way to go in every case.
> > This should either be hardcoded or computed from the WAN link.<br>
> Scenario with two Internet-connected routers, each having a different WAN
> MTU. What MTU do you expect both of them to advertise to the LAN?
> > As an extra step, someone could have a larger MTU to be advertised
> > for local attached networks.<br>
> How so? MTU is a property of a L2 domain, a "link". There is no such thing
> as a "default route MTU" or a "prefix MTU" in RAs.
> Best regards,
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
More information about the ipv6-ops