I think it is important to remember that this draft is about *IP* layer
fragmentation. Tunnels can employ tunnel-layer fragmentation at a
layer above IP:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-grefrag/

Or, if the draft intends to also cover tunnel-layer fragmentation it
should probably be updated to say so. 

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 11:17 AM
> To: Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01
> 
> Joe,
> 
> > Agreed but note that draft tunnels will update that RFC in some important 
> > ways.
> 
> With other concerns than those raised in e.g. 4459 and 7597?
> Unfortunately there are cases where there are no other choice than to do 
> fragmentation/reassembly on tunnel endpoints, but still
> the recommendation holds.
> It is so problematic, that it is strongly recommended to engineer the network 
> to avoid that happening.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to