Re: [mif] Comments on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Steven,

7/23/2015, 10:00 PM, Steven Barth kirjoitti:
>
>>
>> The text says "should the IPv6 packet be fragmented,.." which imho is rather clear it means IPv6 level fragmentation.
>
> It is indeed, I feel rather that the intention for your MUST is not obvious.

You mean having all options that belong to one PDV being inside one 
fragment?

> To me I would either expect all fragmented ND packets to be dropped (esp. multicast), only some to be dropped but the packet to be discarded as a whole because of that, or the whole packet to be correctly reassembled.

I do not understand what your "expactation" and the above sentence has 
to do with the text in the draft. Actually, I do not understand what the 
above sentence tries to say.

> In all these cases I don't get the intention of your requirement.

Trying to keep the container as a whole if someone for some reason wants 
to peek into it before reassembly.. but it is not a sticking point for 
the draft. SHOULD would be ok, even removing the whole fragmentation 
text could be ok.

> Beside that I think this requirement is a layer violation here and would require a very good justification (aside trying to work-around some broken host implementations) since it significantly increases the implementation complexity of the RA server (at least in case your RAs are getting big).

I don't understand the claim for layer violation.. the implementation 
complexity annoynace I understand.

- Jouni

>