I think it is important to remember that this draft is about *IP* layer fragmentation. Tunnels can employ tunnel-layer fragmentation at a layer above IP:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-grefrag/ Or, if the draft intends to also cover tunnel-layer fragmentation it should probably be updated to say so. Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 11:17 AM > To: Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01 > > Joe, > > > Agreed but note that draft tunnels will update that RFC in some important > > ways. > > With other concerns than those raised in e.g. 4459 and 7597? > Unfortunately there are cases where there are no other choice than to do > fragmentation/reassembly on tunnel endpoints, but still > the recommendation holds. > It is so problematic, that it is strongly recommended to engineer the network > to avoid that happening. > > Cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
