Support to adopt as WG document.
Couple of questions.
Fernando,
When you say "Namely, they try to perform IPv6
reassembly with the "atomic fragment" and any other fragments already
queued with the same set {IPv6 Source Address, IPv6 Destination
Address, Fragment Identification}." If there is just one packet what happen?
Does the host just hang in there waiting for the next fragment (that possibly
will never arrive) until it times out?
Also, you quoted RFC2640 "In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to
an IPv4 destination
(i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4) …" I wonder
if there is any negative implication for IPv4/IPv6 translators if atomic
fragments are forbidden as proposed.
Regards,
.as
On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:23, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>
> Title : Processing of IPv6 "atomic" fragments
> Author(s) : Fernando Gont
> Filename : draft-gont-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-00.txt
> Pages : 12
> Date : 2011-12-15
>
> as a 6MAN working group document. Please state your opinion, positive
> or negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs. This consensus call
> will end on January 31, 2012.
>
> Regards,
> Brian & Bob
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
