IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 09 February 2016 20:24 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 5135D1AD1EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:24:57 -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 9AoewQj4QAgu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B0611AD1DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.123.85.51] (usc-secure-wireless-088-051.usc.edu [68.181.88.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u19KOBGT008003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, David Borman <dab@weston.borman.com>, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ6w=G4ysJGsNC_F-N5+-P9-OmUYDx1f14mew7GNAEaUmDfYg@mail.gmail.com> <20160208155214.91667.qmail@ary.lan> <CAOJ6w=H3F5Tyez0=hJYnq+wscBsCN0ROxwA4RppjfXzV5nwBJw@mail.gmail.com> <2F942F4E-F890-49A1-91C8-F304B9FBA2D3@weston.borman.com> <CAHw9_iKw5chdJqy4QTqAKXa5q3pMgSQFdbZfi-7TKOs325+1wA@mail.gmail.com> <56B91A4B.5020507@joelhalpern.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56BA4AE8.6050104@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:24:08 -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: <56B91A4B.5020507@joelhalpern.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/_xguZcW1NPeNNDSoHokWunNa1cc>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf <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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:24:57 -0000


On 2/8/2016 2:44 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I would note that tunnel mechanisms either need a very good path "size"
> reporting mechanism or a way to fragment.

If you don't have a way to fragment, you end up with a hard limit on the
amount of tunneling and tunnel overhead. Otherwise, at some point, you
end up with a "size" of zero.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email