On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Stig Venaas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:11:18PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
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....
Right, so I think a typical implementation would as you say, let each
fragment have the Path MTU size (at least 1280), while the last might
be smaller.
But assume you have say a 1500 byte packet. Instead of fragmenting so
that the first fragment has say 1280 bytes, why not split packet in
two equal sized fragments. That way you avoid further fragmentation
which might occur if there is further encapsulation taking place later
on the path.
BTW, I know that fragmentation order might vary, e.g. Linux at times
send (or used to send) fragments in reverse order.
You halving approach not very useful for 9K packets, which is tend to be
common on GE and 10GE.
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
