IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 10 February 2016 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 6E28F1B3792 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:21:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3nKHcoxArulr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:21:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECA7F1B3790 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20975 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 06:01:50 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 10 Feb 2016 06:01:50 -0000
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.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>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:21:00 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56BA95C7.8060109@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QVrmMNb6l8_tVBNl6HCAzEBNQIs>
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:21:05 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>> Tunneling, encapsulation, VPNs, IP-in-IP are all network activities.
> 
> Tunneling is an end system activity.
> 
> Nodes that encap or decap are acting as sources or sinks, not relays.

A problem is that relays (firewalls) are involved in decap.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email