> On Feb 27, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> Encapsulation doesn’t make the packet larger.
Not strictly; it does make the unit of transfer larger. It’s the tunnel
ingress’s job to adapt to that, e.g., using source fragmentation at the ingress.
> It is no different to
> talking a packet from a ethernet and pushing it out a PPP link. The
> Enclosing headers differ in sizes but the IPv6 packet remains the
> same size.
We’re talking about the unit of transfer - which does get larger….
>
> The difference with encapsulation, from the non encapsulation cases, is
> that PTBs are sent to the encapsulating node which has to synthesis a
> PTB to the original (as far as the encapsulating node is concerned)
No, it really doesn’t. I don’t expect to chop packets into 48 byte units just
to go over an ATM “hop” in an IP path. The only party who needs to know about
the PTB of a tunnel transit is the tunnel ingress. Again, see
draft-intarea-tunnels.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
