Fred,
I can’t speak to Fernando’s work.
However, I can tell you with relative certainty that IPv6 fragmentation will
not be deprecated until all transport layer protocols break their dependency
upon it.
Ron
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Ronald Bonica; Joe Touch; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hey Guys,
If you permit the tunnel ingress to send PTB with MTU<1280, the original
source will respond by sending subsequent packets with a fragment header
included so the ingress can fragment the payload packet (at least that is the
behavior expected by RFC2460, but not all hosts observe that). But, that is
exactly the behavior Fernando Gont is trying to deprecate in his “atomic
fragments” work. Then there are also others who want to deprecate IPv6
fragmentation altogether. I appreciate what you are going for, but there
are a number of factors that would appear to block it.
Thanks – Fred
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:31 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; Joe Touch; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Fred,
On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Templin, Fred L
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Ron,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:13 AM
To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Joe,
The latter. The following is text from the draft:
" This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the
payload or delivery protocol. It updates RFC 2784 [RFC2784]. Like
RFC 2784, this specification describes GRE how has been implemented
by several vendors."
You are asking for Proposed Standards status. That goes beyond documenting
just "what is", and specifies once and for all "what will forever be".
RFC 2784, a Proposed Standard, does exactly what you say goes beyond what it
should do (forever).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2784#section-1
Finally this specification describes the intersection of GRE
currently deployed by multiple vendors.
In other words, PS and “what is” are not conflicting.
— Carlos.
Thanks - Fred
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
On 2/24/2015 7:49 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
So, what I am saying is that tunnels should support a guaranteed
minimum MTU of 1500 bytes as in 'draft-templin-aerolink'.
That depends on whether this document describes "what should be" vs.
"what is".
I had thought it was the latter.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
