On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:02 AM Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/3/19 12:36, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:21 AM Templin (US), Fred L > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to read this yet, but the AERO draft has > >> for > >> a long time proposed including an IPv6 fragment header as the next header > >> in an IPv4 packet (see Appendix A of 'draft-templin-intarea-6706bis'). Is > >> what > >> you are proposing essentially the same thing? > >> > > Fred, > > > > Looks like it is for fragmentaton (ESP and AH are already extension > > headers used with IPv4). Use of the fragment header with IPv4 is > > compelling because it could address deficencies in IPv4 fragmentation > > like the small ID field. It might also free up IPID to be used as an > > IPv4 flow label (RFC6864 states IPID can be arbitrarily set for atomic > > datagrams). > > Isn't the general consensus to move away from fragmentation as much as > possible? > I don't believe so. There are still a lot of valid use cases for fragmentation. draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-09 talks about the current state fo fragmentation.
Tom > > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
