Joe,
About middle-box reassembly, it should probably also mention Virtual Fragment
Reassembly where the middlebox gathers fragments but does not reassemble
them. Then, when all fragments have been received the middlebox performs
any transformations then releases the fragments. Several cisco webpa
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:03 AM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Ro
I think it is important to remember that this draft is about *IP* layer
fragmentation. Tunnels can employ tunnel-layer fragmentation at a
layer above IP:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-grefrag/
Or, if the
Support
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juan Carlos
Zuniga
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:58 PM
To: int-area
Subject: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05 &
draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-03
Dear Int-Area WG,
The draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05 has bee
Why not call it "IPvLX" - it does not squat on a codepoint, and it is
"ten times better than IPv6".
Fred
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
[mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:14 PM
> To: Tom Herbert ; Templin, Fred L
>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Is the UDP destination port number
> resource running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-
> intarea-gue-04.txt
>
If you are talking about the GUE direct encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, I agree
with the current spec and that direct encapsulation (i.e., with no additional
encapsulations between the IP/UDP and inner IP headers) is desirable and
should remain as part of the spec. I think we may be over-thinking t
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:25 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:22 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2017 1:13 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:17 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2017 11:49 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> &g
Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:49 AM
> To: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
>
> Hi Joe,
>
&
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
>
> Hi, Fred (et al.),
>
> On 5/23/2017 9:17 AM, Templin, Fred L
o any IP/X
encapsulations (X could be TCP, for example).
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:38 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Joe Touch
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fr
Joe, I wanted to run an idea by you. We all know that IPv4 fragmentation has
problems because of the 16-bit ID field. So, why not insert an IPv6 Fragment
Header between the IPv4 header and the upper layer protocol data, then
use IPv6-style fragmentation instead of IPv4 fragmentation?
So, the IPv4
Hi Joe,
I read the whole document, and I think is ready for advancement in its current
form
modulo the Informational -> BCP decision. I support changing the document track
from Informational to BCP, with the understanding that more work will be needed
in Section 5 if that would be the case. Thank
t over that and move on...
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:52 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
&g
Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:17 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> Fred,
>
> Regarding the fo
Interesting timing on this message, but see below:
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:13 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-0
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:04 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> Winding down to the last
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 2:38 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> Winnowing down... I think we&#x
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 1:38 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> HI, Fred,
>
> On 5/3
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:47 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> Hi, Fred,
>
> Your r
Hi Joe,
Sorry for the extended delay - see below for responses:
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:06 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action:
Hi Joe,
See below:
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:38 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt
>
> Hi, Fred,
>
Here are my comments for this draft. Mostly editorial, but some substantial.
I also noticed several indications that further work was needed in some
sections. Will those sections be worked before publication?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
1) P. 5, change "in which packet sizes ... misma
Jan 9, 2017, at 11:53, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > On Monday, January 09, 2017 11:02 AM, james woodyatt
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> p2. Section 3.3, Host Specification says this:
> >>
> >>>> In light of these considerations, a "Type C" host that
Thank you, Tomoyuki-san. I agree with your observation, and will make the
necessary changes to the draft.
Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Tomoyuki Sahara [mailto:tsah...@iij.ad.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:28 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
[mailto:zied.bouz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:48 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Christian Huitema ; Brian E Carpenter
; 6man WG ; INT Area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Route Information Options in Redirect Messages
Hi Fred
In section 6 :
"Namely, the protocol must take measures to s
Hi Brian,
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:24 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; 6man WG ; INT
> Area
> Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages
>
> On 11/01/201
Hi Christian,
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@huitema.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:34 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> ; '6man WG' ;
> 'INT Area'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Rou
red
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 2:08 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; 6man WG
> Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages
>
> Fred,
>
> Ca
Jan 9, 2017, at 07:51, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >
> > See below for a new draft that proposes to update RFC4861 and RFC4191 to
> > permit the inclusion of Route Information Options in Redirect Messages.
> > This represents a backward-compatible extension to the IPv6 ND Redirect
&
Cross-posting onto "int-area" where discussions motivated this work.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 7:51 AM
To: 6man WG
Subject: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages
See below
See below for a new draft titled: "Route Information Options in Redirect
Messages".
This document was motivated by discussions on the intarea list from several
weeks
ago. Please review and post comments to the list.
Fred Templin
fred.l.tem...@boeing.com
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Anno
prefix of the destination in the interface identifier). So, next-hop
determination is stateless and requires no message exchanges.
Do you see a problem with that?
Thanks - Fred
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:37 AM
To
networking
- Unmanned Air Systems
That is only to name three. If you need more, let me know.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:17 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
; Brian E Carpenter ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area
8:53 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
; Brian E Carpenter ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels
Fred,
On 12/9/2016 4:25 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
I read your document and, for the applications I am concerned with, I
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
; Brian E Carpenter ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels
On 12/6/2016 2:43 PM, Templin
in
IP-over-(foo) documents. AERO is an IP-over-(foo) document.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
; Brian E Carpenter ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
draft-yong-intarea-inter-sit
low data rate
data links like LDACS and many varieties of SATCOM. Dynamic neighbor cache
updates in the same manner as described in RFC4861 are the method employed
by AERO.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:02 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: regarding subnet redirects
>
> Hi, Fred,
>
>
> On 12/6/2016 1:52 PM,
0) to the IP layer.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:59 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
; Brian E Carpenter ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels
On 12/6/2016 1:
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:37 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: regarding subnet redirects
>
> Hi, Fred,
>
> I'm encouraging you to pull
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:59 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:36 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:11 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 2:47 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 11:47 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 11:08 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:21 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:52 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:32 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:04 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 11:33 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-
Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:49 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; Lucy yong
> ; Brian E Carpenter
> ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on
> draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels
>
> Hi, Fred, et al.,
>
&g
> I'm also quite unable to know how to position this proposal compared to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-aerolink which has
> been in development for several years. They seem to tackle some of the same
> problems.
> [Lucy] In fact, Fred informed us about draft-templin-aerolink before
Hi Lucy et al,
I would like to invite you to review the AERO proposal, which is also about
interconnecting multiple network sites as VPNs over IP backbone networks:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/
I have not yet aligned this document with intarea, but will probably do so
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:03 AM
> To: t.petch ; Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Questions to draft-intarea-tunnels-03
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
>
&g
ementer to understand.
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:15 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; t.petch
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Questions to draft-intarea-tun
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:29 AM
> To: t.petch ; Templin, Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Questions to draft-intarea-tunnels-03
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
>
&
Hi Christian,
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@huitema.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 9:58 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; 'Joe Touch' ;
> 'Linda Dunbar'
> Cc: towns...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject:
Hi, I just submitted a new version of the AERO spec that includes a section on
packet sizing issues that relates directly to this discussion.
Please review Section 3.12 of the AERO document and compare it to what
appears in intarea-tunnels. The two documents should be in agreement.
Thanks - Fred
Hi Joe,
Ø If the ingress fragments and egress reassembles, the MTU of the tunnel(or
link) is 2000 - encaps overhead.
Unless I am misunderstanding Linda’s comment and your response, the fact that
the
egress attaches to a 2000B link has no bearing on the MTU size the egress can
configure.
As
Hi Tom,
> Joe
>
> I find paragraphs such as
>
> " Fragmentation is critical tunnels that support TTP packets for
>protocols with minimum MTU requirements, while operating over tunnel
>paths using protocols with minimum MTU requirements. Depending on the
>amount of space used by enc
The draft is correct as-written. It is exactly like ATM, where the reassembly
buffer size
determines the MTU. Where it is slightly different than ATM is that we know
that the
*minimum* cell size is 1280 (for IPv6), but if there is administrative
assurance that a
larger cell size could be used th
be at least 1280B unless larger sizes can be used, but since you
have
said it you have spoken correctly.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:01 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; Linda Dunbar
; towns...@cisco.com
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int
Hi, Joe and Mark are right - a tunnel has the same characteristics as a link.
Just
as you would never admit a 9KB packet into a 1500B link without fragmentation,
a tunnel ingress must never admit a packet into the tunnel if it is larger than
the
egress reassembly buffer size.
Joe's analogy of AT
: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:42 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
I am not going around this block again.
Joe
On 7/21/2016 2:34 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
RFC4861 says
...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/21/2016 2:11 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
I disagree; the interface can advertise an MTU as large as the largest
reassembly unit
of a
source address.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:05 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/21/2016 1:53 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
? Nodes that do not forward have no business
21, 2016 1:25 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/21/2016 12:47 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Joe,
If the multipoint tunnel interface is capable of delivering
internally-generated PTB messages
as if they had been generated by
[mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:21 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/21/2016 11:02 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Joe,
Tunnel fragmentation is essential for tunnels that cannot safely use outer
to the smallest. AERO allows for the former.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:16 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/21/2016 10:56 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe
: Templin, Fred L
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
Please see the end sections of intarea-tunnels. This doc is intended to resolve
inconsistencies, not propagate them. Besides, that doc was only ever
informational anyway and we should be aiming
2KB reassembly buffer.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/21/2016 9:18 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
ified
in Section 3.2 of RFC4861. It means that multipoint tunnels should allow
variable
MTUs determined on a per-egress basis and not necessarily a single MTU for
all egresses.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:00 PM
measures to drop those fragments.
Given that being the case, why can't the egress also send a PTB message back to
the source of the fragments?
Thanks - Fred
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:11 PM
To: Joe Touch
Hi Joe,
? I have made it clear why this is inconsistent with this this document.
Your document needs to be made consistent with RFC2764; not the other way
around.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:38 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area
G, etc.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/20/2016 5:41 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
? That quote is (still) intended for
link.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
On 7/20/2016 5:03 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Note - all t
5:12 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 4:56 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
? RFC2764 is inconsistent with intarea-tunnels. There are plenty of tunnels
that do not use any of what you call tunnel fragment
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:52 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
>
>
>
> On 7/20/2016 4:47 PM, Templi
fragmentation and work just fine?
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:44 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
Fred,
RFC2764 is inconsistent with intarea-tunnels. There are plenty of
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:37 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: multipoint tunnels
>
>
>
> On 7/20/2016 4:34 PM, Tem
3.1.7.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:17 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
Fred,
I'm going to wait for someone else on the list to confirm that they too do not
under
Joe,
For multipoint tunnels, it should be OK if not all egresses configure the same
reassembly buffer size, so the ingress may have an MTU that is greater than
the reassembly buffer size of one or more egresses. Your document needs
to say this.
This is supported by RFC1981(bis), where it says:
L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 12:53 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
This is all much simpler than you are making it out to be. The steps are:
1) Perform inner fragmentation on the original IP packet if necessary
That
).
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 11:35 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
? Outer fragmentation (as you're usin
:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 10:47 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
We are talking now about fragmentation, and not atomic datagrams.
It matters because
outer fragmentation *after*
encapsulation. It should be very straightforward to note this in your
document.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:02 AM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 9:09 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
Inner fragmentation, tunnel fragmentation and outer fragmentatio
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/20/2016 8:10 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
Inner fragmentation is what happens *before* encapsulation.
Tunnel fragmentation is what happens *during* encapsulation.
Outer fragmentation
...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:29 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
On 7/19/2016 2:48 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
? For IP, these values are represented by the offset value and MF field value.
GUE
Hi again Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:15 PM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmen
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:56 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
>
> On Tu
gets into how, but that's not relevant for intarea-tunnels.
Fragmentation and reassembly at the tunnel layer - not the inner or outer IP
layers. That is certainly relevant.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:42 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int
2764 is not a specification of an exact encapsulation format, but
it articulates the spirit of what we are trying to capture here.
Thanks - Fred
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:07 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-co
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:39 PM
To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
Fred,
Let's start with a few fundamentals...
First, do you at least agree that 2764 mid-tunnel isn't
1 - 100 of 499 matches
Mail list logo
