Re: "Deprecate"

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Fri, 02 August 2013 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 B9D9221E82DB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 03:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iXMdFPEZfgFl for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 03:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED4311E8251 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 03:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r72At3YS042894; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:55:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201308021055.r72At3YS042894@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: "Deprecate"
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:35:47 +1000. <20130802003547.71BB137EE821@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:55:03 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:55:14 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  And if we generate appoximately equal sized fragments rather than
>  1280 byte fragments + a runt fragment tunnels would need to fragment
>  less often.  Your 1500 byte UDP payloads become 2 x 750 byte fragments
>  which can be encapulated multiple times.

=> I did this for the ISC AFTR code (the partner asked for).

>  It doesn't take a lot of math to work out what size to fragment at to
>  produce optimal fragment sizes for a given MTU.

=> yes, it is not hard even the alignment constraints are not too
easy to handle (I coded it in two parts, first compute an ideal
fragment size, second integrate alignment constraints to produce
fragments with the same size at the exception of the last one).
I didn't see a huge difference but it looks better on the wire,
no tiny last fragement for instance...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr