On 2011-06-22 00:51, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
>> As far as routers go, I think we have to say that an implementor has
>> to choose between a reassembly-based solution using the 5-tuple and
>> simply using the 2-tuple (maybe also the fragmentation ID - there is
>> some scope for ingenuity here).
>
> OBSERVATION:
> A deployed IPv6 router will encounter many more non-fragmented
> packets than fragmented packets.
>
> RECOMMENDED APPROACH:
>
> For the case of non-fragmented packets, use of the full 5 input
> parameters ought to be mandated.
I'd go for RECOMMENDED; we really should leave some scope for
implementors I think.
Brian
>
> For the case of fragmented packets, use of reduced inputs that
> are available in the IPv6 header alone should be permitted
> as an option for implementers.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
