On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Mohacsi,
LWAPP encapsulation, IPv6-in-IPv6 etc.
I have to study LWAPP encapsulation - currently I have no opinion. In the
IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation It is completely possible that tunnel endpoint
has to fragment the packet. Multiple level encapsulation might cause
multiple level of fragmentation. This is the price of if encapsulation....
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98
Thanks.
Vishwas
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:11 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Pekka Savola; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IPv6 and Tiny Fragments
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Pekka,
That sounds good. We seem to be coming from different direction but to
the same thing.
I however would prefer to be closer to 800, to allow more levels of
encapsulation, especially the first header.
I do not agree with Mohacsi because the 1280 limit will not allow
further encapsulations, without fragmentation.
What further encapsulation are you referering to? If I would be a
implementer and I would have to pass packets bigger than MTU.
I would take as much content as I can into the first fragmented packet
and
so on until there is content left. I would use fragment at least minimum
MTU (size >1280).
Pekka, besides the RFC does not state how we treat M flag as 0 and
fragment Offset as 0?
Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98
Thanks,
Vishwas
-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 3:12 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Mohacsi Janos; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IPv6 and Tiny Fragments
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
I think that is the minimum Link MTU and not the smallest size
non-last
fragment.
Can you point me to the RFC/ draft which says what you stated?
This is a good point. Let me copy a part of Elwyn Davies's message on
the list on September:
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:14:26 +0100
From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Haberman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Taking RFC2460 (base IPv6) spec to full standard - issues
outstanding
....
[outstanding issues in core IPv6 spec before moving to full standard]
? Fragment reassembly algorithm - should explicitly forbid
overlapped
fragments and possibly require that non-final fragments are
(say) at
least 1024 bytes.
The minimum IPv6 fragment size is not specified AFAICT.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
