>>> I’m not convinced relying on IP fragmentation is a good idea. In the best >>> case, loss of a fragment results in loss of the entire packet, multiplying >>> the effective loss rate. There can also be middleboxes that drop fragments. >>> It would be better if the control place could fragment to MTU size packets >>> (either the actual MTU, or a typical MTU – 1280 octets perhaps). >> >> Well an implementation can certainly build messages of effective MTU length >> which in most cases is 1280/1500 as well. > > I’d suggest that the document provide guidance on doing this, since relying > on IP fragmentation is going to be problematic.
Did you see the text we added to the posted draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15? > >>> Sure, but as I mentioned, the draft needs some justification for why this >>> is safe from a congestion control viewpoint. >> >> Can you suggest some simple text that would be sufficient. We have done the >> analysis in other drafts. Would simply pointing a reference to them be >> sufficient you think? > > If the analysis exists elsewhere, then referencing it is likely sufficient. > If not, this needs analysis by someone who understands LISP to explain why it > won’t cause congestion. I’m not a LISP expert, so cannot do that analysis. Okay. >>> That’s fine, there should be some discussion of the privacy implications of >>> exposing those addresses. The WebRTC community has run into considerable >>> issues due to leaking IP addressing information – perhaps this is not a >>> concern for LISP, but the issue should be considered, if only to add a note >>> explaining why it’s not a concern. >> >> This only happens in the NAT-traversal cases. I think it should go in the >> Security Consideration section of that draft. Not this draft. The >> standardization effort at this point in time is not including NAT-traversal >> mechanisms because that draft has not been accepted as a working group draft >> yet. > > Putting the details into the NAT traversal draft likely makes sense, but I do > think a brief addition to highlight that there may be an issue, and to point > to the discussion elsewhere, would be worthwhile. There is no issue. The private address RLOCs are probed by ITRs and found unreachable. So they are not used to encapsulate packets to. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
