> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:50 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; Joe Touch
> <[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG
> <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
>
> 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....
IPv6 fragmentation is not fragile - only IPv4 fragmentation is fragile.
> --
> 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
