On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
> but other context identifiers would long term be better.
> Demux-Identifiers at the granualarity of a subscriber or
> application wold be a lot more scalable than flow
Hi, Toerless,
Overall, I think that it's OK for the doc to remind of us of what is
*already* required and best practice:
- IPv4 hosts SHOULD avoid enabling in-net fragmentation (needed, in
part, for IP ID compliance at high rate per RFC 6864)
- IP routers MUST support forwarding of fragments
Tom,
On 2018-08-29 09:53, tom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>
>> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
>> but other context identifiers would long term be better.
>>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Tom,
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-29 09:53, tom wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
> but other
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Templin (US), Fred L
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As document shepherd, I am required to perform a review. Please see below
> for initial comments, and respond on the list.
>
Hi Fred,
Thanks for shepherd review and comments! Some response inline.
Tom
> Fred
>
> ---
>
>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
> but other context identifiers would long term be better.
> Demux-Identifiers at the granualarity of a subscriber or
>
On 2018-08-29 18:34, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Joe,
>
> End hosts are already quite capable of dealing with reassembly,
Regardless, middleboxes shouldn't be avoiding their own effort by
creating work for others. A corollary to the Postal Principle should be
"you make the mess, you clean it up".
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-29 10:38, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>
> I don't think you need the part about acting as a host, that would
> have other implications.
>
>
> It does, and that's exactly why you do. In particular, this includes ICMP
> processing.
>
>
On 2018-08-29 10:38, Tom Herbert wrote:
> I don't think you need the part about acting as a host, that would
> have other implications.
It does, and that's exactly why you do. In particular, this includes
ICMP processing.
> Also, the reassembly requirement might be
> specific to NAT and not
