On 11 Sep 2013, at 06:30, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > excuse me, i left an edit out of my earlier proposal. > > This specification does not define a maximum for any future IP transport > protocol, and so both initiators and responders should be prepared to > receive messages as large as the 9 kilobyte ethernet jumbogram size in > preparation for future transport protocol development."
Perhaps that should be "at least as large as the 9 kilobyte"? A future transport (or link level) protocol might permit even bigger jumbograms. Apologies for using a meaningful Subject: header. :-) _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
