Re: [Softwires] [nvo3] Is it feasible to perform fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets.

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Fri, 03 June 2016 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3325E12D146; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W_zYmls8QhWz; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4343612D127; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.29] (unknown [78.193.136.169]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4646A13F6B0; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:50:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A1535E92-481B-4573-B233-780626C5AB2B
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Despr=C3=A9s?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D55B37B@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:48:04 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7C3B0012-D5B9-4857-BE5E-9579265C76DF@laposte.net>
References: <E83B905A-FF6D-4996-B71A-7921DE4B133B@ericsson.com> <BFC09F5C-D6DF-4B6B-AA95-03919B9F09FB@cisco.com> <573E2A0E.1060609@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D54EB60@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <573F453C.5060908@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D554B73@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <5743303C.5040109@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D55514C@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <5743DD16.3050506@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D555482@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <57448C14.2060203@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5557DE@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <9c462520-eb8e-fcd0-0a08-228f80fbc779@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5596E0@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <8790AF6F-CCD6-43AC-A50E-957B037643F1@employees.org> <57507611.5010801@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D55B2A4@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <575108D3.3010506@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D55B37B@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/0FTtZkmefedtrs8EMK5UAXQtrbo>
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [nvo3] Is it feasible to perform fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets.
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:48:20 -0000

> 2016-06-03 09:38, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> :
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 12:34 PM
...
>> Yes, but the alternative of declaring that you don't reassemble has a cost in
>> terms of dropped segments too.
> 
> The alternative is to configure the MTU of the core large enough to accommodate the added encapsulation header. This is a feasible and proven approach in well-managed SP networks. No packet loss and no forwarding performance degradation.

Just for information on this subject, an earlier analysis is a available in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6751#section-6.4.
(No plan to participate again in IETF technical debates.)

Regards to all,
RD