[153305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Mon Jun 4 19:41:35 2012
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:40:01 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A852C@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Templin, Fred L wrote:
> I'm not sure that a randomly-chosen "skip" value is even
> necessary.
It is not necessary, because, for ID uniqueness fundamentalists,
single event is bad enough and for most operators, slight
possibility is acceptable.
> Outer fragmentation cooks the tunnel egresses at high
> data rates.
Have egresses with proper performance. That's the proper
operation.
> End systems are expected and required to
> reassemble on their own behalf.
That is not a proper operation of tunnels.
>> Thus, don't insist on having unique IDs so much.
>
> Non-overlapping fragments are disallowed for IPv6, but
> I think are still allowed for IPv4. So, IPv4 still needs
> the unique IDs by virtue of rate limiting.
Even though there is no well defined value of MSL?
>> I'm talking about not protocol recommendation but proper
>> operation.
>
> I don't see any operational guidance recommending the
> tunnel ingress to configure an MRU of 1520 or larger.
I'm talking about not operation guidance but proper
operation.
Proper operators can, without any guidance, perform proper
operation.
Masataka Ohta
