Hi, all, I still think it would be useful for this doc to describe how tunnels interact with fragmentation (per draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels), which seems to be something I’ve noted several times before.
I’m also still not thrilled with the title I’d be happier with “IP fragmentation still not supported per requirements”, and I’d have to see where this goes with final recommendations. But I agree *some* statement is worthwhile here. My primary concern is that if we’re not careful, endorsing the status quo will only ensure nothing changes. So I sincerely hope that some of the strongest recommendations here are that both direct IP devices and tunnel ingress/egress devices need to do a better job of supporting fragmentation, and that protocol/device designers SHOULD avoid mechanisms that are not compatible with fragmentation (e.g., NAT or DPI without doing reassembly first). Joe > On Jul 24, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Wassim Haddad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > We would like to start a WG adoption call for > draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile (“IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile”). > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-03.txt > > > Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is August > 10th. > > > Thanks, > > Juan & Wassim > _______________________________________________ > 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
