Hi Joe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 3:02 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > On 2/27/2015 2:16 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Ah, here is the source of the confusion. IPv6/IPv4 translators do not use > > encapsulation so there is no such thing as an outer header. > > I would argue there's no such thing as an inner header. > > When you translate from one to another, you take OFF the IPv6 header and > add the IPv4 one.
Right, per the correction I supplied in my last message. > That's never confused as IPv6 on-path fragmentation because the receiver > is now IPv4. > > I.e., this is consistent with IPv4 allowing on-path fragmentation, and > consistent with IPv6 never fragmenting on-path. You are being dogmatic for no good reason. If a tunnel ingress is handed an atomic fragment with a good ID, then it should fragment the packet if necessary. It is just as if the original source had fragmented the packet itself. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
