Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
It was taken out in response to Warren Kumari’s comment that it was out of place and already covered in a section later in the document. If it is added back in, it probably belongs in that section, not the introduction. > On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:33 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > 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. > > Please put this section of text back in the document where it belongs. > > Thanks - Fred > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM >> To: 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) >> >> Hi, all, >> >> So let me see if I understand: >> >> Alissa issues a comment. >> >> We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward. >> >> The new draft is issued that: >> >> a) ignores the list consensus >> b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1) >> c) now refers to vague “other documents” without citation >> d) most importantly: >> >> REMOVES a key recommendation that we MAY use frag where it works >> >> Asserts the false claim that IP fragmentation “will fail” in the Internet, >> despite citing evidence that the *majority of the time* it does work >> e.g., for IPv6, sec 3.9 >> >> What happened? Why is a change this substantial not reflecting the *list >> consensus*? >> >> Joe >> >>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
