Some further points... On 6/1/2012 7:45 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic >>> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets. > >> The recommendation in this doc - that such sources MUST rate-limit - is >> to comply with the ID uniqueness requirements already in RFC791 that >> this doc does not deprecate - e.g., its use to support fragmentation. > > It means that the uniqueness requirements must be loosened.
This document does that for atomic datagrams. We discussed whether it was realistic to change the requirements for non-atomic datagrams in INTAREA, and decided it wasn't. > Another example is that, when route changes, routers > fragmenting atomic packets may change, which means rate > limiting does not guarantee ID uniqueness. Rate limiting (of non-atomic datagrams) is at the source, which ensures ID uniqueness regardless of where they are fragmented. Routers already should not be fragmenting atomic datagrams, as has been noted. Joe
