Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-00.txt

[Resending from Moderators account]

Hi all

This draft (draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-00) is being discussed across 
three different lists - intarea, ipv6 and the IETF list. As the latter 
list is for general topics only [1], I am removing it from the thread. 
Please continue to discuss on the intarea list, and if appropriate ipv6. 
A simple 'reply all' should now achieve this.

Thanks,
Chris Box on behalf of the Moderators team for [email protected]

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html [1]

---

 From: Robinson, Herbie <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 at 18:55
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: 
draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-00.txt
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Templin (US), Fred L 
<[email protected]>
Cc: IETF intarea WG <[email protected]>, IPv6 List <[email protected]>, ietf 
<[email protected]>

I would agree it must not be there when DF is 1.  When DF is zero, there 
is always the possibility that a forwarding router will fragment the 
packet.  From a practical standpoint, one wants the originator of the 
packet to provide the option whenever sending to a different subnet.



Links:
------
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area