Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 15 February 2016 07:06 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 09BD41A885D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] 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 ryHbBiXkH6jj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:25 -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 814311A6F51 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 90806 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2016 06:47:04 -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; 15 Feb 2016 06:47:04 -0000
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, 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> <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu> <56BC9516.6050305@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BCCBB4.4050909@isi.edu> <56BCF514.6040401@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BE23F0.4090403@isi.edu> <56BFD7B3.9080505@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56C14D50.4040802@isi.edu>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <56C178EB.1060903@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:06:19 +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: <56C14D50.4040802@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mnYe7Wr1FCspRxrJ8HinaKnfiDU>
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:06:26 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>> QoS (not CoS but real QoS) capable routers must inspect L4.
> 
> That must be why there are QoS indicators in the L4 header.

There are not.

> Oh, wait - those are in L3 (RFC2474 and its successors).

Can you read this?

	QoS (not CoS but real QoS)

> Yes, layering is a difficult concept.

Layering is trivially easy. If you think it difficult,
that is your problem.

						Masataka Ohta