Ole, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:00 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile > > Fred, > > > Ron, it is just a drop in the bucket compared with the amount of discussion > > since > > "Fragmentation Considered Harmful (1987)". But, I think we now clearly see a > > case where fragmentation is *required*. > > Absolutely. As tunnels produce a new link-layer, that can (should) be a > function of that link-layer. > Network layer fragmentation is not needed for that. > (For the purpose of making the point and to set future direction, ignoring > existing IP tunnel mechanisms).
New tunnel protocols like GUE can specify their own link adaptation schemes in an encapsulation sublayer above the outer IP layer. Section 5 of "GUE Extensions" specifies exactly such a scheme: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions/ However, existing tunnel protocols like RFC2473 and RFC4213 do not have the option of inserting an encapsulation sublayer and have no alternative but to employ IP fragmentation. Fred > Cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
