Re: [L2tpext] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: (with DISCUSS)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Tue, 17 January 2017 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F5312995B; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:19:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.283
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.437, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwvd_sooIPC3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA595129695; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:19:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=127649; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484619548; x=1485829148; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=zlILSVSUr2P9lkgTtq9VwJ5ENJr+zYICYH8E7f6+WVA=; b=l6awu6QQSpWbPRp1XikkzZEImsoeh35ak78AWCzOcx6HBe16YbDr9NPc 5BBhng+EJkBQ6BM7rRPSxVPB/tkkiiHzp1ksLHG/7VS2hFzmPhpOx1GsT dIy/b7/NtxET7cm1BuR5bs+TbcOnl3QSut74p7J7N9N9/nuHI632MmRyl M=;
X-Files: PastedGraphic-1.png : 86049
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,242,1477958400"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="195719211"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2017 02:19:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0H2J73K027286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:19:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:19:06 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:19:06 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHSNYdicJf2sj+zD06sRQ83UTKgj6E8uOgA
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_1A7CD395178C4A42AFD48DDB9769A39Aciscocom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:19:11 -0000


Can you please respond to this DISCUSS?



Carlos Pignataro,<>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:04 AM, Suresh Krishnan <<>> wrote:

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


* Section 5
I am having a hard time seeing how fragmentation is expected to work

  It is NOT RECOMMENDED for routers implementing this specification to
  enable IPv6 fragmentation (as defined in section 4.5 of RFC2460) for
  keyed IP tunnels.  IP fragmentation issues for L2TPv3 are discussed
  in section 4.1.4 of RFC3931.

And that specific section of RFC3931 recommends using RFC2473 to tunnel
the packets which again ends up using the RFC2460 fragment header that
this draft is trying to forbid.

So, can you please clarify exactly what happens when the size of the
packet to be tunneled exceeds the MTU?