I raised the issue of the limitations imposed by RFC 7112 during the course of this saga – it’s on the list of things that were bluntly and shamelessly ignored without a single comment before this document mysteriously was declared to be moving forward out of last call on the basis of some +1’s.
Thanks Andrew From: ietf <[email protected]> on behalf of Joseph Touch <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 1 March 2020 at 05:21 To: Fernando Gont <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Internet Architecture Board <[email protected]>, Internet Area <[email protected]>, IETF <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200) On Feb 29, 2020, at 5:46 PM, Fernando Gont <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I did look at the protocols involved here; the ingress does add headers but doesn’t appear to handle fragmentation. That’s a non-starter if you want your packets to traverse a network because people WILL hand you 1280-byte packets, so what will you do? FWIW, we have been insisting on this point (and others) since they first tried to push EH insertion in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header. THey removed it from *that* document, but they keep trying to push similar ideas in other documents. Well its seems simple to me - they need a plan for fragmentation or it’s simply a nonstarter because they can’t support 1280-B packets traversing the network. No amount of “but this is what the user wants” translates to “they want their packets dropped silently”. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
