Iljitsch, >-----Original Message----- >From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:21 AM >To: Templin, Fred L >Cc: Internet Area >Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: [RRG] Subnetwork Encapsulation and >AdaptationLayer (SEAL) > >On 4 mrt 2008, at 17:14, Templin, Fred L wrote: > >>> But the part that really bothers me is that there will ALWAYS be >>> fragmentation even when the source host would have been perfectly >>> capable of reducing its packet size. > >> Turning back to this, the current SEAL draft is silent >> on behavior in the face of persistent fragmentation. From >> "Fragmentation Considered Harmful", the pain point is gross >> fragmentation in the presence of congestion, since the loss >> of a single fragment will result in the whole packet being >> retransmitted causing yet further congestion. Approaches to >> handling this include 1) drop large packets, and tell sources >> to start sending smaller ones, 2) treat the loss of fragments >> as a congestion indication, 3) some combination of the two. > >If I were an implementer, what I'd probably look at is making a >separate, shorter queue for packets that cause the encapsulated packet
>to be fragmented and send too bigs for those if there is a tail drop. Maybe you could say more about this; one thing for sure we do not want is gross reordering of packets. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
