-----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@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.templin@boeing.com
Masataka Ohta