Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/2017 01:22, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
>> In any case if we see this entire thread the only technical concern with
>> EH
>>> insertion was MTU. And how that issue is solved when you do additional
>> IPv6
>>> header encap ?
>>
>> PMTUD applies to the path between source A (encapsulator) and destination B
>> (decapsulator). If you decapsulate at B and the encapsulate again, PMTUD
>> applies to the path between B (encapsulator) and C (decapsulator). They are
>> completely independent; it's a new packet. PMTUD doesn't occur between A
>> and C at all.
>>
> 
> 
> ​Are you saying that it is "legal" to fragment IPv6 packet by a router at
> the encapsulation point in the network ?

I can't see any reason why the encapsulating packet couldn't be fragmented;
it's just a packet (whose payload happens to be another packet). But I would
hope that jumbo frames would make this unnecessary in the scenarios where
SR will be used.

Also, assuming 2460bis is on its way through the IESG and RFC Editor soon,
I can't see any reason why draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06
couldn't proceed to WG Last Call. I'm not quite sure why we're having this
conversation.

   Brian