On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 5:28 AM Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe, > > >> The need for fragmentation cannot be completely > >> eliminated and we do need it to work. Devices that do things to > >> prevent correct operation still need to be fixed, and it would be > >> productive for the draft to include statements on how some of the > >> sub-problems problems can be fixed (like using flow label for ECMP > >> instead of ports). > > > > On that we agree. That’s my key concern - how to do this in a way that > doesn’t effectively kill off IP fragmentation for the rest of us. > > For IPv4 it’s an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that we are out of > IPv4 addresses. As we continue to increase the ratio of users per IPv4 > address, IPv4 fragmentation, or any protocol that isn’t TCP or UDP are not > going to work well in the public IPv4 Internet. > IPv4 Internet Architecture is evolving as a consequence of address > run-out. I think we’ve pretty much explored the solution space for IPv4 > sharing mechanisms, so I think you just have to accept this new and > unimproved (sic) IPv4 Internet architecture. > Ole, How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that fragmentation, alternative protocols, and extension headers are viable on the IPv6 Internet? Tom > Cheers, > Ole
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
