On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 8:31 AM Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/9/19 17:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > Why was this section taken out: > > > >> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels > >> > >> This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > >> fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. > >> Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations > >> regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. > > > > Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may > exceed > > the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path MTU. > And, > > for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly > support > > the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation. > > Isn't that an oxymoron? If fragmentation is fragile, if you need > something robust, you need to rely on something else.... > Not really, to say fragmentation is fragile is a subjective statement, not a quantifiable fact. As discussed on the list, fragmentation is productively in use in many networks that employ tunneling. In those cases fragmentation is not fragile and so there's nothing to fix. I don't understand this change nor the others in the latest draft either. 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 >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
