Hi Fred,
Thanks for reviewing yet another version of the draft. But I would like to push
back ever-so-gently on your proposed edit.
We agree that the draft does not and should not propose the deprecation of IP
Fragmentation. We also agree that IP tunnels require fragmentation. And because
one critical application requires fragmentation, we cannot deprecate it.
Yes, there may be other applications that require fragmentation. IPERF may be
one of them. But we don't need to mention it because we have already made our
case against deprecation. Mentioning every application that requires
fragmentation is over-kill.
Ron
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:22:47 +0000
> From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
> To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt
> Message-ID:
> <554d668a29934ecf9fdf95d77d1cca52@XCH15-06-
> 08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I made this comment earlier, but it does not appear to have made it into this
> version.
> Some applications invoke IP fragmentation as a performance optimization,
> and that should be mentioned here. But, it also needs to say that RFC4963
> warns against reassembly errors at high data rates.
>
> Suggestion is to add the following to the introduction:
>
> "While this document identifies issues associated with IP
> fragmentation, it does not recommend deprecation. Some applications
> (e.g., [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]) require IP fragmentation. Others (e.g.,
> [IPERF3]) invoke IP fragmentation as a performance optimization, but
> can incur reassembly errors at high data rates [RFC4963]."
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
>
*************************************
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
