| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 04.12.96 02:37l 240 Lines 6823 Bytes #-10800 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_254
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/254
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<DB0TUD<DB0NDR<PI8AWT<PI8JYL<PI8WFL<PI8MBQ<
PI8VNW
Sent: 961202/0022 50129@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21784 ; Mon, 02 Dec 96 00:00:13 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00000449 ; Mon, 02 Dec 96 00:22:58 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00000427 ; Mon, 02 Dec 96 00:17:41 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.5.5) with SMTP
id AA00008656 ; Mon, 02 Dec 96 00:17:35 MET
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 96 00:09:52 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_254>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/254
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
TCP-Group Digest Sun, 1 Dec 96 Volume 96 : Issue 254
Today's Topics:
AX.25 PID for IPv6
IP v 6 (6 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 09:41:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <brian@lantz.com>
Subject: AX.25 PID for IPv6
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Brian Kantor wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion over who administrates PID assignments
> these days, so I'm going to just pick one and we'll make it official by
> using it a lot.
>
> I can't find any record of 0xC6 being used by any other protocol. Do any
> of you know of any use of that PID? If nothing turns up, we'll go with it.
>
> Please let me know.
I've looked at all the sources I have, and c5-c9 seem to be unused. Looks
fine here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Lantz http://www.lantz.com brian@lantz.com
REAL PORTION of Microsoft Windows code:
while (memory_available) {
eat_major_portion_of_memory (no_real_reason);
if (feel_like_it)
make_user_THINK (this_is_an_OS);
gates_bank_balance++;
}
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:22:13 +0100 (GMT+0100)
From: Julian Munoz <julian@nos.ea4rct.ampr.org>
Subject: IP v 6
> From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
> Subject: Re: IP v 6
> To: brian@lantz.com (Brian A. Lantz)
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:30:07 +0000 (GMT)
> Cc: alan@cymru.net, brian@nothing.UCSD.EDU, tcp-group@nothing.UCSD.EDU
>
> We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU allowed
> in IPV6 is 576 bytes.
But ??? Isn't 256 the maximum packet length for the standard ax25 ??
Saludos de Julian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:03:53 GMT
From: brian@nothing.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor)
Subject: IPv6
Since Fred is far from being a Luddite, I'd be interested in more
discussion of v4 vs v6 and why we might NOT want to change over
from him and from others.
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:02:45 -0600
From: Steve Sampson <ssampson@oklahoma.net>
Subject: IP v 6
Julian Munoz wrote:
>
> > From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
> >
> > We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU
allowed
> > in IPV6 is 576 bytes.
>
> But ??? Isn't 256 the maximum packet length for the standard ax25 ??
Yes (a good practical size for 1.2 kbps as well).
But you can fragment the larger packet into smaller packets. Just
remember to
set your reassembly TCP timeout to at least an hour :-)
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:49:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
Subject: IP v 6
> > We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU
allowed
> > in IPV6 is 576 bytes.
>
> But ??? Isn't 256 the maximum packet length for the standard ax25 ??
As I was saying ;)
Everything I've met now seems to support the fragmented AX.25 frame stuff
but 576 is still annoyingly large. It does appear legal to send a TCP
MSS of 216 in IPv6 so that almost everything will be a sensible size
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:42:13 -3200 (PST)
From: Dennis Rosenauer <rosenave@octoblob.rfnet.sfu.ca>
Subject: IP v 6
According to Steve Sampson:
>
> Julian Munoz wrote:
> >
> > > From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
> > >
> > > We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU
allowed
> > > in IPV6 is 576 bytes.
> >
> > But ??? Isn't 256 the maximum packet length for the standard ax25 ??
>
> Yes (a good practical size for 1.2 kbps as well).
>
> But you can fragment the larger packet into smaller packets. Just
> remember to
> set your reassembly TCP timeout to at least an hour :-)
I think this MTU discussion is kind of pointless. You just run what
makes sense for the local RF network in question. We use IPv4 on our
56K links here, the MTU is 1550 bytes to avoid fragmentation on the
ethernet side of the links. We dumped the rest of the AX.25 baggage
years ago.
For a slow link with a high probability of error run a small MTU, for a
fast link with low probability of error run a large MTU. Just run what
makes sound technical sense for your RF network. That's all there is
to it!
Dennis.
--
Dennis Rosenauer VE7BPE | A computer running for 2 seconds
rosenave@octoblob.rfnet.sfu.ca | can make as many mistakes as 20
| men working for 20 years.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 16:23:16 +1100
From: Mark Aitken <vk3jma@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: IP v 6
At 07:22 PM 30/11/96 +0100, you wrote:
>
>> From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
>> Subject: Re: IP v 6
>> To: brian@lantz.com (Brian A. Lantz)
>> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:30:07 +0000 (GMT)
>> Cc: alan@cymru.net, brian@nothing.UCSD.EDU, tcp-group@nothing.UCSD.EDU
>>
>> We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU allowed
>> in IPV6 is 576 bytes.
>
>But ??? Isn't 256 the maximum packet length for the standard ax25 ??
>
>Saludos de Julian
>
>
>
So all that that means is that there is a little fragmentation to suit the
AX25
requirements.
Or maybe we could move away from AX25 as a LINK LAYER protocol??
73
Mark
ax25net : vk3jma@vk3ksd.#mel.vic.aus.oc
internet: vk3jma@ozemail.com.au
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V96 #254
******************************
You can send your message for this bulletin
to: tcp-group@pa2aga on .AMPR.ORG-net
or: tcpaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu on BBS-net
------
NOT TO: pa2aga@pa2aga or pa2aga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu PLEASE!!
It will get posted automatically within a few days
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
