Agree with Joe, and also just to mention that RFC4459 discusses tunnel MTU and fragmentation considerations.
Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:08 AM > To: otr...@employees.org; Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com> > Cc: Softwires WG <softwi...@ietf.org>; n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; > l...@ietf.org; ts...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible to perform > fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets. > > > > On 5/27/2016 3:50 AM, otr...@employees.org wrote: > > It is not possible to implement reassembly complying with IETF RFCs. > > a) ATM does this at ridiculously high fragment rates. Granted IP frags > can come out of order, but the fragments are generally much larger. > > b) What is the alternative, given we have minimum MTU requirements? > > If you're limiting yourself to IPv4 payloads where DF=0, sure, there > there is an alternative. But you've just disabled IPv6 and IPv4 with DF=1. > > I.e., it's not possible to NOT implement this and comply with IETF RFCs. > > Joe > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
