On 3/2/2015 10:08 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> So you're talking about updating RFC2460 to allow on-path fragmentation >> > of source fragments. I disagree with that, for the same reasons it was >> > omitted from IPv6 in the first place. > > In this case, the tunnel ingress uses on-path fragmentation of the payload > packet instead of link-specific fragmentation of the delivery packet. The > tunnel egress is therefore excused from having to reassemble. That is > better than link-specific fragmentation and reassembly, and will make > for a better IPv6 Internet.
I disagree. This method, IMO, simply lets tunnels make work that endpoints need to clean up. It trades profit for tunnel equipment vendors (who get to make what I consider to be underpowered equipment) at the expense of endpoints. See "tragedy of the commons". Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
