[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: icmpv6-v3 comments



[snipped other parts as I trivially agree with them]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com wrote:
> > OK -- I'm fine with putting it in as MAY, with some 
> > additional text to describe its inherent problems, 
> > e.g. like:
> > 
> >   Note that setting up Security Associations to deal with all the 
> >   required ICMP packets is a very difficult, if not even impossible, 
> >   task (e.g., consider the PMTUD packets) so typically this is does 
> >   not seem to be practical.
> 
> I don't agree that it is completely impractical to use IPv6 without
> PMTUD.
> 
> What about:
> 
>    Note that setting up Security Associations to deal with all the 
>    required ICMP packets is a very difficult task (e.g., consider 
>    the PMTUD packets).  So PMTUD (and possibly some others) may not
>    work if the node only allows authenticated ICMP packet.

s/packet/packets/

I'm not sure if that gives a sufficiently strong disclaimer about 
PMTUD, but this is good enough for me at this point.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------