You might also want to look at tsvwg-udp-options In one case, they’re used to support PLPMTUD (which you already note).
Alternatively, they provide transport-layer frag/reassembly that might be useful for DNSSEC as well as enabling NAT-traversal by retaining ports across fragments. Joe > On Mar 5, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Joe, > >> On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> wrote: >> >> This doc completely overlooks the role of fragmentation in IP over IP >> tunneling and the reason fragmentation is critical (IP has a maximum packet >> size, not just a minimum). >> >> See draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. > > Good point. We will take a look at intarea-tunnels and look at some changes > to the fragmentation draft. > > Bob > > > >> >> As a result, IMO the recommendations and conclusions are incorrect. >> >> Joe >> >>> On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:16 AM, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Please review draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 and provide comments. >>> The URL is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01. >>> >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Int-area mailing list >>> Int-area@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
