+1. Thanks,
-- Carlos. On Feb 18, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > I think that we are conflating two separate efforts. > > Draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu describes what is widely deployed today. In > today's, one of the following conditions frequently holds: > > - the operator of the GRE ingress knows that the GRE egress cannot reassemble > fragments at the required rate > - the operator of the GRE ingress has no information regarding whether the > GRE egress can reassemble fragments at the required rate > > Therefore, in draft-bonica, by default, the PTU is equal to the MTU. > Fragmentation doesn't happen in the tunnel. However, in the exceptional case, > where the operator of the ingress knows that the egress can reassemble at the > required rate, fragmentation of the delivery packet is permitted. > > The draft that Joe and Fred are considering applies to environments where > egress routers are commonly capable of reassembling at line rate. Since this > is a different environment, it should be addressed in a separate draft. > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:29 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt > > > > On 2/18/2014 10:22 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> I can see that I am going to have to write a draft on generic tunnel >> fragmentation. > > - > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
