RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:50 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; james woodyatt; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> function
> 
> Yes, I am talking about IPv6 fragmentation.

OK, but if you want to deprecate that you need to replace it
with something else like SEAL.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

>                      Ron
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:56 PM
> > To: Ronald Bonica; james woodyatt; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> > function
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Ronald Bonica
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:22 PM
> > > To: james woodyatt; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> > > function
> > >
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > If ICMPv6 PTB messages are unreliable, fragmentation breaks just as
> > > badly as PMTUD.
> >
> > I'm trying to understand that, but maybe you are talking about IP
> > fragmentation? SEAL fragmentation is a different thing, and can be
> used
> > in place of IP fragmentation.
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > > At the risk of going off-topic, please take a look at draft-bonica-
> > > intarea-gre-mtu-02.
> > >
> > >                                                  Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > james woodyatt
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> > > > function
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 08:49 , Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > Probably, the best alternative is for the tunnel ingress router
> > to
> > > > tunnel ingress router to discover the PMTU to the egress. When
> the
> > > > tunnel ingress router receives a packet that is so large that it
> > > cannot
> > > > be forwarded through the tunnel, it discards the packet and sends
> > an
> > > > ICMP PTB to the packet's originator. The packet's originator then
> > > > modifies its sending behavior based upon its new estimate of the
> > > > PMTU associated with the destination.
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > ICMPv6 packet too big errors are unreliable on the real-world
> > > Internet.
> > > >
> > > > I hate to sound like a broken record, but I will: I look forward
> to
> > > > reviewing a proposal to update to Generic Packet Tunneling in
> IPv6
> > > [RFC
> > > > 2473] for implementing tunnel path MTU discovery at the
> > > > encapsulation layer [c.f. RFC 4821].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
> > > > core os networking
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
> > > > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> 
>