IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Mon, 24 June 2013 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14C321E80A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fqfd6DnMJt9q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B8221E808D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUG88807; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:19:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:18:37 +0100
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:19:13 +0800
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:19:07 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
Thread-Topic: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOb7w5GhJfZWsTvkmEF1gJL7lsrZlDZbaAgAC4lMA=
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D734FB7@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C408BC.4030909@forthnetgroup.gr> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85BCB@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C48776.9070107@globis.net> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85FBA@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C4AD03.2050303@globis.net> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F86075@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C4BD1E.6030002@gmail.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F8625A@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20130623024908.8352C362ABA1@drugs.dv.isc.org> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180A7772@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180A7772@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:19:23 -0000

I have the similar concern.
Especially in the softwire context, fragmentation is always an important consideration when developing various tunneling mechanisms.

B.R.
Bing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:02 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg
> Subject: RE: FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Deprecation of IPv6 fragmentation would make life difficult for IPv6
> tunnels. For tunnels that span paths with ~1280 MTUs, the tunnel ingress'
> only option is to fragment since it is not permitted to return a PTB with
> MTU less than 1280. See RFC2473 for example of a normative specification
> that depends on IPv6 fragmentation.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email