On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jari Arkko wrote:
- 'Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful ' <draft-heffner-frag-harmful-02.txt> as an Informational RFC
I raised this in private comment, but I'll mention this again because the authors disagreed with the first point and apparently forgot the second one. Hopefully this would result in others taking a look at the draft as well.
- The title should really be "IPv4 Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful" plus some minor wording changes. The document does not as written provide sufficient justification why IPv6 fragmentation should be considered "very harmful" as IPv6 has 2^16 more bits of fragment space, mandatory PMTUD, and routers not fragmenting packets.
I have no problem that the draft also mentions how the considerations also apply to IPv6, but not underlining that the serious problems mentioned in the draft are IPv4-specific is not good.
- in a couple of places like in 2nd to last paragraph of S2, and S6, you forget to mention that the protocol number is also a disambiguating factor in the fragment ID generation.
-- 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
