Hi Ran, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > RJ Atkinson > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Deprecate" > > > On 06 Aug 2013, at 13:21 , Templin, Fred L wrote: > >> Tunnel ingress devices already are allowed to fragment > >> IPv6 packets by various IETF approved tunnelling > >> specifications, as you have agreed. > > > > Fragmentation of the inner packet before encapsulation > > is different from fragmentation of the outer packet after > > encapsulation. > > I've coded this for IPv6. It is the SAME fragmentation > code AND the SAME reassembly code for both cases. > > The operational scenarios can and do vary, but the > code path (and the specification for how to perform it) > are IDENTICAL - not DIFFERENT.
I have coded fragmentation and reassembly code too. Many of the readers of this list have as well, so I don't know that you can claim to be uniquely qualified to speak on this point. > > ... > > This discussion is coming full circle... > > (I agree this sub-thread is looping. So can we please > let this rest on grounds that no one has proposed any > specification change ? :-) SEAL is proposed. SEAL addresses tunnel and transport mode operation in environments where ICMP PTBs may be absent or untrustworthy. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Yours, > > Ran > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
