Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Joe, >> The need for fragmentation cannot be completely >> eliminated and we do need it to work. Devices that do things to >> prevent correct operation still need to be fixed, and it would be >> productive for the draft to include statements on how some of the >> sub-problems problems can be fixed

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 5:28 AM Ole Troan wrote: > Joe, > > >> The need for fragmentation cannot be completely > >> eliminated and we do need it to work. Devices that do things to > >> prevent correct operation still need to be fixed, and it would be > >> productive for the draft to include stateme

[Int-area] draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-04 Post-IETF102 Discussion

Following on from the Q&As and hallway chats at IETF102, I've captured a few questions for further discussion on the lists. For those yet to review the draft, it can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-04 - BFD Echo: Still requires a full BFD implementati

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-04 Post-IETF102 Discussion

I went to my internal experts and had a chat with them about this draft. Here is some feedback on the draft. Everyone I talked to agrees that keeping the IPoE "connection" up on access loops is important. [This relates to my saying at the v6ops session that Richard was right about this being a

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Tom, > How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that > non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that > fragmentation, alternative protocols, and extension headers are viable on the > IPv6 Internet? I don’t think the IPv4 implementations are no

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > Tom, > >> How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that >> non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that >> fragmentation, alternative protocols, and extension headers are viable on >> the IPv

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

On 01/08/2018 11:29, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> Tom, >> >>> How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that >>> non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that >>> fragmentation, alternative protocols,