And being pedantic... On 31/05/2016 06:12, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 5/29/2016 4:23 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> I.e., you MUST support source fragmentation at the ingress at the outer >>>> IPv6 layer (because UDP doesn't have support for fragmentation and >>>> reassembly). If you make this requirement, you can handle IPv6 over the >>>> tunnel. >> Yeah I don't support it for this reason. getting IP fragments back >> together in the same place a reassembled is hard is in some cases >> especially when you hash. (see frag drop) given alternatives that better >> address such situations it seems hard to justify. > > If you intend to support recursive IP tunneling* and believe that IP has > a minimum MTU, then you have to accept reassembly.
If you intend to support recursive datagram tunneling and believe that any path has a minimum MTU, then you have to accept reassembly. This is physics, and nothing to do with design details. (Something I discovered in about 1983, when implementing OSI/CLNP at CERN over a homebrew network with 128 byte packets.) Brian > > Joe > > * where "recursive IP tunneling" is IP in [zero or more other protocols] > in IP. > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
