Hi Ron, > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 10:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu > > Fred, > > How would you achieve backwards compatibility with legacy implementations? If > backwards compatibility cannot be achieved, maybe > you are talking about a new protocol, that will ultimately replace GRE?
Haven't thought about it too much, but I assume backwards compat would be handled in the same way that it was handled when RFC2784 was updated by RFC2890. That is why this document says "updates RFC2784 and RFC2890". Plus, two new bits have been carved out of the Reserved0 field in the GRE header and, if the bits are non-zero, it is a pretty good indication that the fragment header is included. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Ron > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > > > > > Title : GRE Tunnel Fragmentation > > Author : Fred L. Templin > > Filename : draft-templin-intarea-grefrag-00.txt > > Pages : 5 > > Date : 2015-04-09 > > > > Abstract: > > GRE tunnels use IPv4 or IPv6 fragmentation of the delivery packet > > when the delivery packet exceeds the tunnel MTU, or when otherwise > > necessary. This can cause problems when unmitigated IPv4 > > fragemntation ensues, or when middleboxes drop IPv6 fragments > > unconditionally. This document proposes GRE tunnel fragmentation > > which avoids these pitfalls.. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
