Co-authors of 'draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels', Section 3.6 ("Fragmentation")
discusses
(The Necessity of) Outer Fragmentation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels/
"Outer fragmentation is valid for any tunnel link protocol
that supports fragmentation (e.g., IPv4 or IPv6), in which the
tunnel endpoints act as the host endpoints of that protocol."
But, [RFC8900] has correctly declared IPv4 and IPv6 fragmentation "fragile"
such
that the use of the word "valid" for these examples needs to be qualified.
Better still
would be to cite "Fragmentation Revisited" which discusses the fragile nature
of IPv4
and IPv6 fragmentation as a problem statement for a robust alternate solution:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-fwiw/
Proposed edit:
"Outer fragmentation is valid for any tunnel link protocol
that supports fragmentation (e.g., IPv4 or IPv6), in which the
tunnel endpoints act as the host endpoints of that protocol
(see: [FRAGREV])."
Thank you - Fred
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
