IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 09 February 2016 00:06 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 F1B321B3DD7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:06:25 -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 triU2euOYYH7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:06:25 -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 ED1121B3DC8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (unknown [186.56.164.217]) (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 0B76E206B3D; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 01:06:21 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, ietf <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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56B92A96.9050200@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:53:58 -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: <CAMm+LwgLoYpQ1TNOTOuJzh+cu+GyRBf9=y_K7K35boQ9WcZKjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aqhehOa5m4DaknPS66tOGhrOyv0>
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 00:06:26 -0000

On 02/08/2016 05:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
[...]
> The ability to consistently support 64KB packets and thus high
> throughput is potentially one of the main selling points for IPv6. I
> don't believe in trying to persuade people to move to IPv6 through
> differences in function. It will be a decade minimum before I consider
> making use of an IPv6 feature not supported in IPv4 in an application
> protocol. Performance is something else, I will encourage people to
> upgrade to get faster performance.

You mean >64KB? -- 'cause IPv4 can do 64KB packets...

-- 
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