RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 2460, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", December 1998

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8200

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5095, RFC 5722, RFC 5871, RFC 6437, RFC 6564, RFC 6935, RFC 6946, RFC 7045, RFC 7112

Source of RFC: ipngwg (int)

Errata ID: 2843
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Florian Weimer
Date Reported: 2011-06-24
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-06-01

Section 5 says:

In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination
(i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the
originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message
reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280.  In that case, the IPv6 node
is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less than
1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets so that the
IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router can obtain a suitable Identification
value to use in resulting IPv4 fragments.  Note that this means the
payload may have to be reduced to 1232 octets (1280 minus 40 for the
IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment header), and smaller still if
additional extension headers are used.

It should say:

(delete paragraph)


This requirement makes it impossible to offer services over IPv6 without keeping per-flow state in the server node. There is no reason why IPv4 fragmentation cannot be used after translation to IPv4.
This would be a fundamental change to the IPv6 protocol specification. Such a proposal would need to be formally proposed as an internet draft.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search