Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 11 February 2016 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57E71B3940 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:05:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hZGDE6BTjNC2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA9241B393D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.104] ([128.9.184.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1BJ4qxK017725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:04:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <20160208200943.A615941B5B96@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAMm+LwgLoYpQ1TNOTOuJzh+cu+GyRBf9=y_K7K35boQ9WcZKjA@mail.gmail.com> <56B92A96.9050200@si6networks.com> <CAMm+LwifTXvVd1mPZOfcOOR03Fnj-82H9aDVS01=wGezePtnXw@mail.gmail.com> <56BA4BC7.1010002@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwi-n=be4AWGibs+Zq9egYw5pSDmPGb-4P0LDEcX1E6osA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA68CE.7090304@isi.edu> <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA739D.7060309@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwij1dOkK0b2ZnJiPMtba=wc823WgYjqw0iwAApa3KBYcg@mail.gmail.com> <56BA95C7.8060109@isi.edu> <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu> <56BC9516.6050305@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BCCBB4.4050909@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwh-2v+MVDSt8GWa98ykH9ZH49Y01d=3rTZXvgD16JKDtg@mail.gmail.com> <56BCD464.4060000@isi.edu> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831833966994@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56BCDB52.1070806@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:04:50 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831833966994@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/44wZflKvmhcvjrGHJgWjse1FAXU>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:05:22 -0000


On 2/11/2016 10:57 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> The beauty of considering a tunnel a link is that the same rules apply,
>> > as they always should have. Just as a link that can't transit an IP
>> > packet requires frag/reassembly within the link (e.g., ATM does this),
>> > so should a tunnel.
>
> This is coming close to repeating a discussion we had in intarea back in the
> August 2015 timeframe, where I thought we had reached a conclusion.

We haven't talked about it yet, but yes - this is closely related to the
INTAREA discussion on this issue and the current WG document on tunnels.

Joe