> The issue here is that the equipement can neither fragment nor return
> a ICMP error message, because it's not an IP equipement.  The packet
> is just dropped.

Then it's the IP encapsulation layer that's broken, for trying to send
a too-large packet over it.  The IP layer needs to know the MTU of the
link, and deal with it.

After all, this is how Ethernet works too: try to send a too-big packet
and it simply won't make it.  It's the IP-over-Ethernet layer that
handles fragmentation &c.  The same needs to happen here.

Any provider that tries to sell a thing such as you describe as an IP
transport should be prosecuted for fraud.

> Yes, it's broken. But for me it's better this way than using a ADSL
> router (instead of a ADSL to ethernet bridge) because I don't know of
> an ADSL router which is not broken (not to talk about native IPv6
> support).

Fine, but it sounds as though you need to layer an IP transport on top
of it, because it clearly isn't one, even if it may think it is (and
may even have been advertised as one).

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B