> -----Original Message----- > From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:41 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels > > Templin, Fred L wrote: > > >> Infinity? You can't carry 65516B in an IPv4 packet. > > > 2) For tunnels over IPv6, let infinity equal (2^32 - 1) > > You can't carry a 65516B IPv6 packet in an IPv4 packet.
No, but you can carry a ((2^32 - 1) - X) IPv6 packet in an IPv6 packet. Just insert a jumbogram extension header. > >> Instead, see the last two lines in second last slide of: > >> > >> http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0018/38214/pathMTU.pdf > >> > >> It is a common condition. > > > > Are you interested in only supporting tinygrams? IMHO, > > go big or go home! > > Bigger packets makes it rather circuit switching than packet > switching. The way to lose. > > Faster is the way to go. Why only fast when you can have both big *and* fast? See Matt's pages on raising the Internet MTU: http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/ Time on the wire is what matters, and on a 100Gbps wire you can push 6MB in 480usec. That seems more like packet switching latency rather than circuit switching latency. Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Masataka Ohta
