Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:12 AM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 10/17/12 1:58 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:19 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> I have been informed by individuals working for major network
>>>> equipment vendors that their implementations can handle router
>>>> reassembly.
>>> "can handle router reassembly" != "can handle router reassembly at
>>> line rate on multiple interfaces".
>>> 
>>> You really need this to be line rate on all interfaces, otherwise
>>> there is (obviously) a DoS vector here.  Reassembly at 10G (or
>>> 100G) is distinctly non-trivial and requires A: large buffers, B:
>>> short timeouts, C: gets sad if not all bits go through the same
>>> device, D: state and E: hardware designed specifically for this.
>>> This is much more than packet comes in, packet goes out...
>> Excuse me, maybe I'm as dumb as a post, but .... why in the world
>> are participants in this thread posing this as problem for the core?
> The fact that  high capacity requirements exsit does not imply that it a problem for the core.

Yah, what he said…

W

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

--
"Have you got any previous convictions?"

"Well, I dunno... I suppose I used to believe very firmly that a penny saved is a penny earned--"
-- Terry Pratchett