Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

2019-09-10 Thread Joe Touch
First, IPv4’s minimum is 68, not 64. The header can be up to 60 octets and the smallest fragment is 8 bytes. Second, the problem with the logic that “bigger avoids fragmentation” is that the very specification of ANY minimum MTU, coupled with IP-in-IP tunnels (for their own sake, or as part of

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

2019-09-10 Thread Joe Touch
+1 You have no way of knowing how many tunnels are being traversed. There is no packet size that *guarantees* you have avoided fragmentation somewhere along an Internet path. Joe > On Sep 10, 2019, at 6:29 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Fernando, > >> -Original Message- >>

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

2019-09-10 Thread Geoff Huston
>> >> This would seem to be incorrect. IP has a minimum MTU of 68 bytes, and >> IPv6 has a minimum MTU of 1280. Hence if you send packets smaller than >> or equal to the minimum MTU, the packets should go through. > > Even if the original source uses the IPv6 minimum MTU of 1280, a tunnel > som

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

2019-09-10 Thread Templin (US), Fred L
Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 1:47 PM > To: Joe Touch ; Bob Hinden > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Suresh Krishnan > Subject: Re