Hi,
As presented in the int-area meeting, please read and comment on the
draft. It should be getting to IETF LC soon. It's very short and
concise (10 pages of meat).
A few answers to the questions asked and some notes:
- the target audience is both the IETF [tunneling] protocol
designers, and the operators considering which tunneling approach to
take.
- the document has in the past been reviewed and well-regarded on
operational fora e.g. nanog. It has also gone through pmtud WG.
- I've specifically wanted to avoid giving too rigid guidance, but
section 4 (Conclusions) gives some amount of guidance as to when
different approaches may or may not be applicable.
- more generic tunneling issues (why they are used in the first
place) or overhead issues are interesting but seem out of scope of
this (focused) effort. (e.g., effect of sometimes piggybacking some
data in e.g., an extension header and sometimes not; this seems like
an issue for for a joint apps/int area investigation)
.....
MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-Network Tunneling
draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt
Abstract
Tunneling techniques such as IP-in-IP when deployed in the middle of
the network, typically between routers, have certain issues regarding
how large packets can be handled: whether such packets would be
fragmented and reassembled (and how), whether Path MTU Discovery
would be used, or how this scenario could be operationally avoided.
This memo justifies why this is a common, non-trivial problem, and
goes on to describe the different solutions and their characteristics
at some length.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
