Hi Joe, Sorry to say, but I still disagree with most aspects of the text on fragmentation and MTU, which are largely the same as what appeared in the previous draft version. I will say that we agree on one fact, however, in that fragmentation is ultimately unavoidable.
When we discussed this last year, I thought we had established some things that got reflected in Section 3.13 of 'draft-templin-aerolink'. I'd like to invite you and the working group to review that text which IMHO presents a better MTU and fragmentation consideration for tunnels. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 8:29 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-03.txt > > Hi, all, > > This update incorporates all pending changes, notably from detailed > reviews and discussions with Fred Templin, Lucy Yong, Toerless Eckert, > and Tom Herbert. > > There's still a bit to do - notably to wrangle out what we want to say > regarding other RFCs in Section 5. This, and the doc's evolution, > suggest that it might be useful to consider shifting the intended track > from Informational to BCP or beyond, depending on whether we need to be > higher than BCP to "update" some of the problems outlined with > standards-track docs (most notably RFC2003). > > NOTE: A brief summary will be presented by the chairs in Berlin, but I > will not be attending. Please use the list as the primary venue for > discussion. > > I am currently hoping we can decide how to proceed on this doc in the > next few months so we can either remove or complete any "pending" > sections and get to WGLC early this fall. > > Joe > > --------- > > Summary of changes: > - now "updates" 4459 (informational too) > - revised MTU terminology based on list discussions (all MTUs indicate > "link" payload sizes) > - revised figures to indicate proximity of ingress/egress "interfaces" > to nodes > - moved Appendix A to new Section 3.6, as outer/inner fragmentation > issue is core > - revised Sec 4.2 (was 4.1) to explain why two different frag algs are > presented > - one is implicit in all hosts/forwarders, irrespective of link > technology > - one is contained "within" the link technology of a tunnel > - updated recommendations throughout section 5 > > Summary of additions: > - Sec 4.1 on the variety of MTU values > - Sec 4.12 on multipoint tunnels > - Sec 5.4 on diagnostics- Sec 5.5.1 on GUE > - Sec 5.5.15 on RTGWG-DT-ENCAP > - Security Considerations text on inner/outer tunnel vulnerabilities > - Recommendation text for Sec 5.5.3 on RFC2003 (IPv4 in IPv4) > > ---- > > On 7/6/2016 11:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Internet Area Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture > > Authors : Joe Touch > > Mark Townsley > > Filename : draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-03.txt > > Pages : 47 > > Date : 2016-07-06 > > > > Abstract: > > This document discusses the role of IP tunnels in the Internet > > architecture, in which IP datagrams are carried as payloads in non- > > link layer protocols. It explains their relationship to existing > > protocol layers and the challenges in supporting IP tunneling based > > on the equivalence of tunnels to links. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-03 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-03 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
