> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 8:40 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Tom Herbert <[email protected]>;
> Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; draft-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
>
> Fred,
>
> >> Is that not the exact definition of outer fragmentation?
> >
> > No. I am talking about outer header (OH) followed by tunnel header (TH)
> > followed
> > by inner packet (IP). Recipe:
> >
> > 1) wrap the IP in a TH to create a tunnel packet (TP)
> > 2) fragment the TP
> > 3) encapsulate each tunnel fragment in an independent OH
> > 4) send each outer packet (OP). These will look like ordinary
> > unfragmented IP packets, but will contain a tunnel fragment
>
> Right you might as well define your own tunnel fragmentation then.
With GUE encapsulation and GUE extensions, it would be a special tunnel
fragmentation yes. But, with RFC2473 encapsulation, it would be good old
IPv6 fragmentation per RFC8200.
This is a valid application of IPv6 fragmentation, hence in scope for this
discussion. The only difference is that the fragments will not be seen
by the network.
Fred
> And it will have a lot less overhead. Doing "segmentation" at what would be
> layer 4 (or 3.5) isn't what we are trying to discourage here.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
