Eduard, I am meaning to represent this as a general purpose solution. Performance critical routers in the middle of the network will never be asked to reassemble – only end systems or leaf network routers near the end systems will fragment, and only end systems or routers near the end systems will need to reassemble.
You are right that OMNI/OAL are not meaning to invalidate all other tunneling solutions, however they will improve the integrity of other tunneling solutions. Remember that tunnels over IPv4 that set DF=0 and do not include an integrity check are open to corruption. OMNI/OAL when used in the presence of those other tunnel types closes the integrity gap. Fred --- Hi Fred, As I remember, you do not try to invalidate all other tunneling solutions. draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels is doing exactly this. IMHO: If some hardware achievement would not give us reassembly almost for free Then the general solution should not assume reassembly because it is still very expensive for hardware at tunnel end points. Overlay/Underlay is very popular our days – we would see more and more tunneling. SRv6 is the best example based on RFC 2473. But it could be fine for your environment because overall performance would not go many Tbps per 1 gateway. It is still possible to rely on something like Network Processor. You would do some tradeoff between cost and flexibility. A little more cost for your environment should not be the problem. Eduard From: Templin (US), Fred L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 6:12 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels concerns Eduard, I did a quick pass through the intarea discussions and I see points raised that have been repeated many times since Y2K and even since much longer before that. Thankfully, there is now a solution called the “OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL)”: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni/ Some might say that it is the “second-coming of AAL5”, and it is true there are many similarities. Like IP over ATM, the OMNI interface has an MTU/MRU visible to the IP layer and set to 9180 bytes since that is the maximum size that can be well protected by CRC32. Like AAL5, within the OMNI interface the OAL has a “cell size” that determines the size of each fragment that will be produced by the adaptation layer below IP. Unlike AAL5 where the cell size is fixed at 48 octets, however, the OAL sets both a minimum cell size (termed “minimum Maximum Payload Size (MPS)”) and a possibly larger per-path MPS discovered using probes if necessary. The minimum/path MPS is the maximum-sized RFC2473 fragment that the OAL can sneak through the path and be assured it won’t be dropped (silently or otherwise) due to a size restriction. Without any probing, the minimum MPS that can be assumed is 576 minus encapsulation overhead (i.e., the IPv4 minimum EMTU_R). But unlike AAL5, the OAL can always strive to find a larger per-path MPS. There is more to be said about the OAL, but I will leave it at that for now. We can talk about PTB “hard” and “soft” errors later if there is interest. Fred
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
