IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 09 February 2016 20:28 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 B22C71AD241 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:53 -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 Y4h2ygA6kno8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:52 -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 A3D391AD2C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:50 -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 u19KRqKo009821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56BA4BC7.1010002@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:27:51 -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: <CAMm+LwifTXvVd1mPZOfcOOR03Fnj-82H9aDVS01=wGezePtnXw@mail.gmail.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/vyISDAO9hh7YA3AhHrUYgxe25WE>
Cc: 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 20:28:53 -0000


On 2/8/2016 4:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
> Problem is that most of us have ethernet hubs rather than true IP
> switches. If we had real IP everywhere we could deprecate MAC
> addresses.

Except that we derive self-assigned IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email