Hello, I find the MTU discussion interesting. It pops up from time to time in different mailing list, a clear sign that we lack a solution and the discussion here show that there are different ideas of how the solution should look like.
Having said that, this is not caused by addressing itself, right? Certainly large addresses eat a lot of that MTU space. I wonder if we are able to describe this as a possible way to add features. Assuming we are able somehow to get rid of the MTU issue, it seems we gain a degree off freedom, how this translates specifically for the addressing? Ciao L. > On 4 Dec 2021, at 05:38, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> My point, which appears not to be tracking, is I *wish* protocol layers >> didn’t have such strict MTUs, but rather expanded as headers were added *at >> all layers*, in the same *spirit* as Ethernet does. > > The Internet can do this. Just make the MTU 1400. Then you can add up to 100 > bytes of header. > > I have the opinion we don’t have an MTU problem. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
