rik Kline
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:26 PM
>> To: Ron Bonica
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
>>
>> I think in that case it's just ensuring the MTU given to the customer via
> Most network providers abide by the policy that you describe. If all of their
> interior links support an MTU of N, their access links support an MTU of N
> minus M, where M is the highest possible encapsulation overhead.
Ah, well, if they already do this then perhaps there doesn't need to
be
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
>
> I think in that case it's just ensuring the MTU given to the customer via
> their
> access link can be carried through their network without, or which a
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Erik Kline wrote:
>
> I think in that case it's just ensuring the MTU given to the customer
> via their access link can be carried through their network without, or
> which a minimum of, fragmentation.
>
> I finally found some text to which I was referred, in 3GPP
I think in that case it's just ensuring the MTU given to the customer
via their access link can be carried through their network without, or
which a minimum of, fragmentation.
I finally found some text to which I was referred, in 3GPP TS 29.060
(GTP) v15.2.0 section 13.2:
All backbone links s
The problem is that the MTU of an IPv6 overlay is defined as 1280 and
cannot be reduced "to make it work". Nor can the MTU of the underlying
IPv6 be increased to help.
Joe
On 2018-11-13 11:36, Erik Kline wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including
>
Hi Erik,
Could you refine the recommendation a little bit? If an ISP were to ask, "What
MTU is fit for my purpose?", how would we answer?
Ron
> Ron,
>
> Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including some
> simple text recommending that network op
Ron,
Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including
some simple text recommending that network operators SHOULD take
efforts to make sure the MTU(s) on their network(s) are "fit for
purpose", i.e. sized to avoid fragmentation to the extent possible.
I'm not sure yet how to
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:13 AM Joe Touch wrote:
Fragment forwarding is a MUST in our standards.
>>>
>>> I believe you are talking about routers supporting forwarding
>>> fragmented packets, not about policy decisions. While the
>>> r
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:13 AM Joe Touch wrote:
> >> Fragment forwarding is a MUST in our standards.
> >
> > I believe you are talking about routers supporting forwarding
> > fragmented packets, not about policy decisions. While the
> > recommendations in the draft (not to filter ICMP PTB message
Jen,
This is a good idea. I will add it to the next draft version.
Ron
> recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would be
> beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented packets
> to/from operator's
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:32 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02#section-7.4)
>>>
>>> recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would
>>> be beneficial to make an ex
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:32 AM Joe Touch wrote:
> > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02#section-7.4)
> >
> > recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would
> > be beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented
> > packets to/f
> On Nov 8, 2018, at 12:46 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>
> Network Operators Recommendations section
>
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02#section-7.4)
>
> recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would
> be beneficial to make an explicit recom
Network Operators Recommendations section
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02#section-7.4)
recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would
be beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented
packets to/from operator's DNS serve
15 matches
Mail list logo
