This is not an argument against implementing IP fragmentation and reassembly, but...
> My question is why IP reassemble is not supported in VPP? It is > understandable that IP reassemble is not required for pure packet forwarding. > But as a router platform, there are also plenty of control plane packets > should be handled, for example BGP packet, IKE packet, that’s the reason why > there is local IP stack on VPP, and IP reassemble is a basic requirement of > local IP stack. How to handle the case if the BGP peer send BGP message in > several IP fragment to VPP? One BGP message could be quite large depending on > route number, and even BGP message fragment can be avoid by MSS since it is > based on TCP. How about the case of IKE peer sending IKE message as IP > fragments? The IKE message also could be quite large with certificate……. BGP uses TCP and wouldn't (and shouldn't) use IP fragmentation. Yes, you are right that you might require it for tunnel endpoints. And we do in fact support IP4 fragmentation and virtual reassembly for some tunnel types. Like MAP-E/T, LW46... IP Fragmentation is largely a DOS vector though. And I know there will be a draft at IETF in London with a strong recommendation against doing fragmentation at the IP layer. Cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
