Hi, Fred, On 12/18/2012 04:13 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > I have a question about this document. Is a middlebox permitted > to fragment an "atomic" fragment before forwarding the packet > on to the next hop? If not, why not - after all, that's why the > host inserted the fragment header in the first place.
My take is that an *IPv6* middle-box is not permitted to fragment the packet. The IPv6/IPv4 translator is, from an IPv6 point of view, a host/end-point/end-system (that's where the v6 world ends for that packet). As to the "why not", I'd guess the reason is "only IPv6 hosts fragment packets" > If so, > then shouldn't the draft say something about the permissible > behavior of middleboxes when forwarding an "atomic" fragment > (e.g., "a middlebox is permitted to perform fragmentation on > an "atomic" fragment before forwarding to the next hop")? Why should there be a difference between fragmenting an atomic fragment and e.g. re-fragmenting a non-atomic fragment? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
