IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 A0E761B3305 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 wO9o6OAlivjL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 376791B32F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (unknown [186.56.150.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC602206B65; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:38:55 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <56BA4B77.2050901@isi.edu> <56BA5E2B.4020700@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56BA8410.3030906@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:28:00 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56BA5E2B.4020700@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/T8o7U5oCsLGYyWWxZZhKJ368PrQ>
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 00:39:02 -0000

On 02/09/2016 06:46 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 01:26 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>
>> So if you have tunnels, fragmentation services are always ultimately
>> required.
> 
> And when broken (like with my ISP), I had to reduce my MTU to 1442.
> Because it looks like fragmentation is failing over any IPv6 connection
> I can use. Or perhaps its some kind of IPv6 restriction I can' find.

Dropping of IPv6 fragments is, unfortunately, widespread. Please see:
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02.txt>.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email