> On Jun 2, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > > ... >> >> >> This draft should reference RFC4459 which gives a very good description of >> MTU and fragmentation problems and handling for network tunnels. >> > > RB> Agree. Added in next version.
intarea-tunnels will be updating that RFC. It would be useful to not repeat its incorrect recommendations. > >> GUE could be mentioned in the "IP encapsulations" sections. As proposed by >> RFC4459, 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. >> > > RB> Could we defer this until GUE gets and RFC number. Otherwise, the draft > may be required to list an amazing number of IP-in-IP encapsulations. That’s already in intarea-tunnels and can be cited there. However, the IP-in-IP direct case is still very relevant - it is the basis of IPsec (e.g., see in particular RFC3884). This document should not undermine that case. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
