On Mar 7, 2018 7:30 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote:

Hi Tom,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:03 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01
> On Mon, 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,
> This draft should reference RFC4459 which gives a very good
> description of MTU and fragmentation problems and handling for network
> tunnels.
> GUE could be mentioned in the "IP encapsulations" sections. As
> proposed by RFC4459,

RFC4459 does not propose tunnel fragmentation (i.e., fragmentation
at a layer above IP but below the transport protocol).

> GUE extensions include a fragmentation option
> within the encapsulation headers in lieu of doing IP fragmentation.
> This is addresses several of the problems described for IP
> fragmentation.

Tunnel fragmentation was first discussed in RFC2764, then later by
me in RFC5320 and in all of my subsequent writings, which is how
it found its way into GUE extensions.

Yes, RFC4459 suggests the possibility of fragmenting the inner IP packet,
but that is not possible if it's IPv6. Fragmentation with the encapsulation
doesn't have that limitation.

Thanks for the clarification.


Thanks - Fred

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

Reply via email to