> -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:30 AM > To: Joe Touch; Brian E Carpenter > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > Brian and Joe are correct - tunnels within tunnels means that fragmentation > and > reassembly are inevitable. Wish it weren't so, but that is the reality.
If so, could you give a concrete example in real network environment where outer fragmentation is widely enabled and works very well? It would be better if the reassembly buffer size needed in the tunnel egress could be given as well. Best regards, Xiaohu > Thanks - Fred > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe > > Touch > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:34 AM > > To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of > > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > > > > > > > On 5/30/2016 1:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > If you intend to support recursive datagram tunneling and believe > > > that any path has a minimum MTU, then you have to accept reassembly. > > > > Agreed- at least one of the layers between the message tunnel and when > > it recurses must support fragmentation and reassembly. > > > > Those who deploy or sell systems otherwise are in denial, not a > > counter-proof. Again, this is where compliance validation would be useful. > > > > Joe > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
