On 2/27/2015 4:13 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Guys,
I would like to suggest that this discussion is beyond the scope of
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6. The chairs may correct me, but it might even be
outside the scope of this WG.
Oh, I certainly agree it's outside the scope of this doc.
IMO, it's clearly within the scope of the WG to discuss this issue in
general, but I'll stop until others jump in and suggest it's a useful
way to go. I don't think it is.
Joe
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:51 PM
To: Joe Touch; Ronald Bonica; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Joe,
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 3:35 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 3:22 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
...
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.
RFC2460 forbids it *explicitly*.
That's a good reason.
You are still being too dogmatic. For atomic fragments, the situation is no
different than for an IPv6/IPv4 translator. In fact, it is even better because
the IPv6 tunnel ingress knows that the final destination is required to
reassemble at least 1500. For an IPv6/IPv4 translator on the other hand, all
the translator is assured is 576.
I do not see any "MUST NOTs" in RFC2460, nor any dire consequences for
allowing a tunnel ingress to fragment atomic fragments. So, if we update the
final paragraph of Section 5 of RFC2460 we should be good to go.
Thanks - Fred
[email protected]
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
