Joe, >>> It also looks like (at first glance at least) these devices work only when >>> there isn't multipath between the back and front side. >> >> The A+P routers are stateless and do support multipath. Including traffic >> does not need to be symmetric. >> That’s the main selling point for A+P, that you don’t need per flow state in >> the core of the network. > > The +P part doesn’t seem like it’s compatible with fragmentation, though - > yet it doesn’t update RFC791 to deprecate it throughout the Internet.
It’s not incompatible with fragmentation. Just that there are some pitfalls. As explained in rfc7597. Fragmented packets do have a higher drop probability, and a higher probability of mis-reassembly on the end system with A+P. Quite similar in behavior to a CGN. > > The only conclusion is that A+P should never be deployed in the presence of > fragmentation - not that it should drop fragments, nor that we should > consider deprecating fragmentation to address that flaw. The problem A+P solves is to allow IPv4 to continue to grow outside it’s boundaries. The solution keeps session state close to the edge, so much more architecturally clean than CGN. If you can solve this problem in a better way please go ahead. Cheers Ole _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
