> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:46 AM > To: Joe Touch > Cc: joel jaeggli; Xuxiaohu; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad; > int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > 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.
Let's take the Softwires network as an concrete example. What's the motivation for SPs to deploy recursive IP tunneling? Xiaohu > 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
