> On Aug 26, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Took us decades to figure out that in-network > fragmentation (as mandaory in IPv4) is not a good thing, and > we eliminated it for IPv6. Why do we hang on to fragmentation > from the host when tranport layers would be better doing it than the IP > layer ?
See draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels As I’ve noted repeatedly, any layer for which there is a maximum size ultimately needs a way to fragment and reassemble at that layer, otherwise it ceases to be a complete participant in the network stack (i.e., if fragmentation/reaseembly happens at another layer, then that layer is effectively shut out of being the basis of a tunnel or protocol layer without that other layer. For IP, the simple issue is that the requirement for IP over IP (for IPsec tunnels, at a minimum), requires it. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
