On 3/9/19 18:41, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > >> -----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.
* RFC7872. * https://blog.apnic.net/2017/08/22/dealing-ipv6-fragmentation-dns/ These seems pretty fragile to me. YMMV, though. Thanks, -- 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
