Joe, I am having a hard time seeing your response as anything other than a non-answer to my question.
Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: to...@strayalpha.com [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2021 12:11 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> > Cc: Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we > want from the Internet? > > Hi, Fred, > > > On Dec 8, 2021, at 11:52 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > > <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > Joe, RFC3819, Section 2 in particular gives BCPs for setting link MTUs. > > NATs and tunnels don’t have control over the link MTUs over which they > operate; the user doesn’t have control over how those are > composed or interact. > > > By my read, the > > only links that would set an MTU smaller than 576 should therefore only > > occur at the > > network edges; not somewhere in the middle of the network. > > Tunnels create an tunnel MTU (which is the link MTU, thinking of the tunnel > as a link) by fragmenting at the ingress and reassembling at the > egress. > > That happens anywhere in the network. While it PRESENTS an effective MTU of > the tunnel as a link, it doesn’t operate as if it avoids > fragmentation. > > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
